1887
Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study propounds a novel discourse-semantic approach that problematizes the social semiotic analysis of visual narrative in two respects: (i) the lack of a model that can explain the plurifunctional structure of visual acts of communication in general and (ii) the failure to provide the deep structure underlying the characters and/or objects in visual narrative in particular. Redressing these two shortcomings, the approach is methodologically geared towards analysing the visual narrative grammar that encodes the 2017 BBC image-enabled news story of Islamic State (IS). The proposed approach rests on two theoretical models: (i) Roman Jakobson’s (1960) communication model of language functions; (ii) Algirdas Julien Greimas’s (19661987) structural-semantic model of actant grammar. The study has reached two major findings. First, theoretically, the visual narrative analysis of images demands the presence of both (1) a theory that can adequately explain the plurifunctional structure associated with the semiotic complexity of visual communication and (2) a structural-semantic model that reveals the deep structure of the actants that enable the to relate to the events featuring in the mono-/multimodal discourse of narrative. Second, on a practical level of the BBC’s visual storyline, IS has been represented within three actant-based enunciation-spectacles: (a) victimhood with Subject versus Object, (b) beneficiariness with Sender versus Receiver, and (c) villainy (self-presented and other-presented) with Opponent/Victim versus Helper.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.18045.sal
2021-06-03
2021-12-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arnheim, Rudolf
    1974Art and Visual Perception. Berkeley: California University Press. 10.1525/9780520351271
    https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520351271 [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, Peter
    2021 Turn-allocation and gaze: A multimodal revision of the “current-speaker-selects-next” rule of the turn-taking system of conversation analysis. Discourse Studies23(2): 117–140. 10.1177/1461445620966922
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620966922 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bal, Mieke
    1985Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: Toronto University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barthes, Roland
    1972 Myth today. In: Mythologies, Roland Barthes, 109–137. (Trans.Annette Lavers). New York: Hill & Wang.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1977Image-Music-Text. (Ed. & Trans.Stephen Heath). London: Fontana.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bateman, John A. & Janina Wildfeuer
    2014 A multimodal discourse theory of visual narrative. Journal of Pragmatics74: 180–208. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bell, Allan
    1996 Text, time and technology in news English. In: Redesigning English: New Texts, New Identities, eds.Sharon Goodman & David Graddol, 3–26. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bertin, Jacques
    1983 [1967]Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. (Trans.W. J. Berg). London: University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bo, Xu
    2018 Multimodal discourse analysis of the movie Argo. English Language Teaching11 (4): 132–137. 10.5539/elt.v11n4p132
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n4p132 [Google Scholar]
  10. Budniakiewicz, Therese
    1992Fundamentals of Story Logic: Introduction to Greimassian Semiotics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sc.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sc.5 [Google Scholar]
  11. Caple, Helen
    2019 Doing critical discourse studies with multimodality: A reply. Critical Discourse Studies16(5): 522–530. 10.1080/17405904.2018.1556172
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1556172 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chandler, Daniel
    2007Semiotics: The Basics (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203014936
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203014936 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chatman, Seymour
    1978Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, N.Y. & London: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen, Yaoyao, Svenja Adolphs & Dawn Knight
    2020 Multimodal discourse analysis. In: The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Approaches to Discourse Analysis, eds.Eric Friginal & Jack A. Hardy, 98–115. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429259982‑7
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429259982-7 [Google Scholar]
  15. Colby, Benjamin N.
    1966 The analysis of culture content and the patterning of narrative concern in texts. American Anthropologist68(2): 374–388. 10.1525/aa.1966.68.2.02a00050
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1966.68.2.02a00050 [Google Scholar]
  16. 1970 The description of narrative structures. In: Cognition: A Multiple View, ed.Paul L. Garvin, 177–192. New York: Spartan Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Culler, Jonathan
    1976Saussure. London: Fontana.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dondis, Donis A.
    1973A Primer of Visual Literacy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fish, Stanley
    1980Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Friedland, Elliot
    2014 Special report: The Islamic State. The Clarion Project, November 2014: 1–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Genette, Gérard
    1980 [1972]Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (Trans.J. E. Lewin). Oxford: Blackwell, Trans. ofDiscours du récit: Essais de méthode.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodman, Sharon
    1996 Visual English. In: Redesigning English: New Texts, New Identities, ed.Sharon Goodman & David Graddol, 38–72. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Goodman, Sharon & David Graddol
    (eds) 1996Redesigning English: New Texts, New Identities. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gombrich, Ernst
    1960Art and Illusion. London: Phaidon.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Granström, Björn, David House & Inger Karlsson
    2002Multimodality in Language and Speech Systems. Stockholm: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑2367‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2367-1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Greimas, Algirdas J.
    1966Sémantique Structurale. Paris: Larousse.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1970Du Sens. Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1971 Narrative grammar: Units and levels. Modern Language Notes86: 793–806.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1983Du Sens II: Essais Sémiotiques. Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1987On Meaning: Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory (Trans.Paul J. Perron & Frank H. Collins). Minnesota, Minn.: Minnesota University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1988 [1976]Maupassant. The Semiotics of Text: Practical Exercises. Trans.Paul J. Perron. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Trans. ofMaupassant, La sémiotique du texte.) 10.1075/sc.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sc.1 [Google Scholar]
  32. Greimas, Algirdas J. & Joseph Courtés
    1982 [1979]Semiotics and Language: An analytical Dictionary (Trans.Larry Crist & Daniel Patte). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (Trans. ofSémiotique. Dictionnaire Raisonné de la Thèorie du Langage.)
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gruber, Christiane & Sune Haugbolle
    (eds) 2013The Visual Culture in the Modern Middle East: Rhetoric of the Image. Bloomington and Indiana: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hall, Stuart
    1972 The determinations of news photographs. Cultural Studies3: 226–243.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1978Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 1989Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Mathiessen
    2004An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hawkes, Terence
    1977Structuralism & Semiotics. London: Methuen. 10.4324/9780203443934
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203443934 [Google Scholar]
  40. Herman, David
    2002Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln: Nebraska University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hiippala, Tuomo
    2016The Structure of Multimodal Documents: An Empirical Approach. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hodge, Robert & Gunther Kress
    1988Social Semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Jakobson, Roman
    1960 Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In: Style in Language, ed.Thomas A. Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Jaworski, Adam & Nikolas Coupland
    (eds.) 2006The Discourse Reader (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Jewitt, Carey & Rumiko Oyama
    2001 Visual meaning: A social semiotic approach. In: Handbook of Visual Analysis, eds.Theo van Leeuwen & Carey Jewitt, 134–156. London & New Delhi: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kress, Gunther
    2010Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen
    1996Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2006Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203619728
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203619728 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lemke, Jay L.
    1998 Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In: Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives, eds.James R. Martin & Robert Veel, 87–113. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Liu, Jing
    2013 Visual images interpretive strategies in multimodal texts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research6, 4, 1259–1263. 10.4304/jltr.4.6.1259‑1263
    https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.6.1259-1263 [Google Scholar]
  51. Liu, Yu & Kay L. O’Halloran
    2009 Intersemiotic texture: Analyzing cohesive devices between language and images. Social Semiotics19(4): 367–388. 10.1080/10350330903361059
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330903361059 [Google Scholar]
  52. Muir, Jim
    2017 “Islamic State”: Raqqa’a loss seals IS’s rapid rise and fall. BBC News Online17October 2017 Retrieved30 November 2018, fromwww.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35695648
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Norris, Sigrid
    (ed.) 2012Multimodality in Practice: Investigating Theory-in-Practice-through-Methodology. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203801246
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203801246 [Google Scholar]
  54. Nöth, Winfried
    1990Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv14npk46
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv14npk46 [Google Scholar]
  55. Nuttall, Louise
    2018Mind Style and Cognitive Grammar: Language and Worldview in Speculative Fiction. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. O’Halloran, Kay L. & Bradley A. Smith
    (eds.) 2011Multimodal Studies: Exploring Issues and Domains. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Ortner, Sherry B.
    1973 On key symbols. American Anthropologist75(5): 1338–1346. 10.1525/aa.1973.75.5.02a00100
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1973.75.5.02a00100 [Google Scholar]
  58. Propp, Vladimir J.
    1968 [1928]Morphology of the Folktale (2nd ed.). Austin, Tex.: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith
    1983Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London: Methuen. 10.4324/9780203130650
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203130650 [Google Scholar]
  60. Saussure, Ferdinand de
    1916Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Schleifer, Ronald
    1987A. J. Greimas and the Nature of Meaning: Linguistics, Semiotics and Discourse Theory. London and Sydney: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Scott, Linda M.
    1994 Images in advertising: The need for a theory of visual rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research21 (2): 252–273. 10.1086/209396
    https://doi.org/10.1086/209396 [Google Scholar]
  63. Thibault, Paul J.
    1991Social Semiotics as Praxis. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2004Agency and Consciousness in Discourse: Self-Other Dynamics as a Complex System. London & New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Thompson, Philip & Peter Davenport
    1982The Dictionary of Visual Language. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Todorović, Tijana, Alenka Čuden, Karin Košak & Tomaž Toporišič
    2017 Language of dressing as a communication system and its functions – Roman Jakobson’s linguistic method. FIBRES & TEXTILE in Eastern Europe; 25(5): 125, 127–135. 10.5604/01.3001.0010.4639
    https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0010.4639 [Google Scholar]
  67. Van Leeuwen, Theo
    2005Introducing Social Semiotics. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 2008Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.18045.sal
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.18045.sal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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