Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper examines the contribution of multimodal strategies in challenging aspects of public discourse about people with disabilities. It looks into media texts that were created by people with disabilities, in which the topic of disability is not a metaphor or a narrative prosthesis, but a demand for recognition and a call for a sincere dialogue, using three complementary strategies: disabling the viewers, challenging dominant aesthetic norms, and ironic echoing. The paper focuses on two autobiographical videos, a promotional video, a small corpus of paintings and a photograph, in which ironic echoing is the dominant strategy.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Attardo, Salvatore
    2000 “Irony and relevant inappropriateness.” Journal of Pragmatics32: 793–826. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00070‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bartal, Ory
    2013 “The story of a Japanese advertisement: An integrative methodology for the study of image in advertising.” InProtocollage 13: Writing the Visual – Methodologies in Visual Culture Research, ed. by Dana Arieli-Horowitz , Ori Bartal and Naomi Meiri-Dan , 134–158. Tel Aviv: Resling and the Bezalel Academy of Art and Design, Jerusalem [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnes, Colin
    1994Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination. Hurst. London.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Breuer, Nili
    2007 “Falling between the chairs: Narratives of exclusion and by the excluded.” Theory and Criticism30: 230–25 [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Butler, Judith
    1990Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cameron, Colin
    2017 “Whose problem? Disability narratives and available identities.” InCommunity Planning and Development: Issues and Opportunities. Critical Concepts in Built Environment, 3. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Charlton, James
    1998Nothing About Us Without Us. University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520925441
    https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520925441 [Google Scholar]
  8. Darke, Paul
    2004 “The changing face of representations of disability in the media.” InDisabling Barriers – Enabling Environments, ed. by John Swain , Sally French , Colin Barnes , and Carol Thomas , 100–105. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Eco, Umberto
    2010History of Beauty. Trans. Uriel, Aryeh. Or Yehuda: Dvir [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ellis, Katie M.
    2014 “Cripples, bastards and broken things: Disability in Games of Thrones.” Journal of Media And Culture17(5). www.journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/895. 10.5204/mcj.895
    https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.895 [Google Scholar]
  11. Goffman, Erving
    1971Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gruengard, Iddo
    2017 Creating out of disability and researching in light of the political. Lecture given (June7 2017) at series of researcher conferences at the Center for Disability Studies, School of Social Work and Social Welfare, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fairclough, Norman and Ruth Wodak
    1997 “Critical discourse analysis.” InDiscourse as Social Interaction, ed. by Teun van Dijk , 258–284. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fairclough, Norman
    2003Analyzing Discourse. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203697078
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078 [Google Scholar]
  15. Friedman, Ariel
    2008 “One leg here one leg there”: Global and local identity in Israeli clips. PhD thesis, Tel Aviv University, Israel [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Friedman-Papo, Ariel
    2001Clips, Television, and Restless Youth. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education Curricula Department and Maalot Publishers [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie
    2002 “The politics of staring: Visual rhetorics of disability in popular photography.” InDisability Studies: Enabling the Humanities, ed. by Sharon L. Snyder , Brenda Jo Brueggemann and Rosemarie Garland-Thomson , 56–75. New York: The Modern Language Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Heinze, Ulrich
    2014 “Pictorial body metaphors.” Language and Dialogue4(3): 425–454. 10.1075/ld.4.3.04hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.3.04hei [Google Scholar]
  19. Holler, Roni
    2014 “People with disabilities and the Israeli welfare state: The case of relief work.” Social Security Journal95: 39–76 [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kama, Amit
    2015 “Wounding images: The representation of people with disabilities in the media.” InFrom Exclusion to Inclusion: Life in a Community of Disabled People in Israel, ed. by Dror Hovav , Mordechai Duvdevani and Clara Feldman , 181–213. Jerusalem: Carmel.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kasnitz, Devva and Russel P. Shuttleworth
    2001 “Anthropology and disability studies.” InSemiotics and Dis/ability: Interrogating Categories of Difference, ed. by Linda J. Rogers and Beth Blue Swadener Albany , 19–42. NY: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Linton, Simi
    1998Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York: New York University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Masefield, Paddy
    2006Strength: Broadsides from Disability on the Arts. Trentham. Stoke-on-Trent.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Meiri-Dan, Naomi
    2009 “The torso in art – Between a long-lost world and a world entire.” The Bezalel History & Theory Department 12: Time between Science and Art, bezalel.secured.co.il/zope/home/he/1235904947/1239600648 [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mitchell, David T. and Sharon L. Snyder
    2000Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mondada, Lorenza
    2014 “Bodies in action.” Language and Dialogue4(3): 357–403. 10.1075/ld.4.3.02mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.3.02mon [Google Scholar]
  27. Mor, Sagit , Neta Ziv , Arlene Kanter , Adva Eichengreen , Nissim and Mizrachi
    (ed. 2016Disability Studies: A Reader. Jerusalem: The Van Leer Institute and Hakkibutz Hameuchad [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Oliver, Michael
    1990The Politics of Disablement. Basingstoke: Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑20895‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20895-1 [Google Scholar]
  29. Pinney, Christopher
    2004Photos of the Gods: The Printed Image and Political Struggle in India. London: Reaktion Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Raskin, Victor
    1985Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster: D. Reidel.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rose, Gillian
    2016Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to researching with Visual Materials. 4th edition. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Rothler, Roni and Ronen Gil
    2010 “On the spectrum and beyond it: Representation of people with autism – difference, abilities, rights and everything in between.” Law & Social Change3:83–101 [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Saar, Tsafi
    2012 “Is disability actually a gender?” HaaretzJune12 2012 www.haaretz.co.il/gallery/mejunderet/1.1728986 (accessedMay 29, 2017) [Hebrew].
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Scotch, Richard K. , and Kay Schriner
    1997 “Disability as human variation: Implications for policy.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science549: 148–159. 10.1177/0002716297549001011
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716297549001011 [Google Scholar]
  35. Shakespeare, Tom and Nicholas Watson
    2002 “The social model of disability: An outdated ideology?” Research in Social Science and Disability2: 9–28. 10.1016/S1479‑3547(01)80018‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3547(01)80018-X [Google Scholar]
  36. Smith, Brett
    2014 “Dialogism, Monologism, and Boundaries: Some Possibilities for Disability Studies and Interdisciplinary Research.” Review of Disabilities Studies6 (3): 25–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sperber, Dan and Deidre Wilson
    1981 “Irony and the use-mention distinction.” InRadical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole . New York: American Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2012Meaning and Relevance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sturken, Marita and Lisa Cartwright
    2009Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Swain, John and Sally French
    2000 “Towards an affirmation model of disability.” Disability & Society15(4): 569–582. 10.1080/09687590050058189
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590050058189 [Google Scholar]
  41. Tamari, Tomoko
    2017 “Body image and prosthetic aesthetics: Disability, technology and Paralympic culture.” Body & Society23: 2. 10.1177/1357034X17697364
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X17697364 [Google Scholar]
  42. Weigand, Edda
    2015 “Identity as a dialogic concept.” Language and Dialogue5(1): 7–22. 10.1075/ld.5.1.01wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.1.01wei [Google Scholar]
  43. 2010Dialogue: The Mixed Ggame. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  44. Willis, Jeanne
    2000Susan Laughs. New York: Henry Holt.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wolf, Janet
    1993The Social Production of Art. London: Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑23041‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-23041-9 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ironic echoing; multimodality; people with disabilities
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error