Email this article 
The Metalanguage of “Visual Design” into the Classroom for the Construction of Intermodal Meanings
Abstract
Given that little research has been conducted to date in the classroom about the exploitation of aspects of “visual grammar” for the teaching of literacy, the purpose of this study is to provide research data to support the adoption of a common image/text relations metalanguage in educational practice as an effective tool for critically negotiating, and mainly, for composing intermodal meanings. Forty-six sixth-grade students who attend a state primary school in the city of Ptolemaida, northern Greece participated in the study. The materials used in the study consisted of: (a) informational, print-based multimodal texts and, (b) compositions produced by students, at first individually and then in groups. The overall research is designed on a pre-test phase, an instructional intervention phase, and a post-test phase. The qualitative comparative analysis of student compositions manifests that the metalanguage of “visual design” constitutes a truly promising, pedagogically utilizable tool for the description, interpretation and comprehension of the interactions among the various semiotic modes co-existing in multimodal ensembles. This entails the development of multimodal and visual literacy skills by the primary education students. These findings highlight the need for adoption and incorporation of such a metalanguage for the design of curricula facilitating the teaching of literacy, in order to reframe the monomodal nature of communication.
Keywords: metalanguage, visual grammar, social semiotic theory, semiotic functional linguistics, multimodality, school context/s, intersemiosis, intermodal synergies
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Callow, J. (2003, April). Talking about visual texts with students. Reading On-Line, 6(8) Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/ art_index.asp?HREF= callow/ index.html.
Callow, J. & Zammit, K. (2002). Visual literacy: From picture books to electronic texts. In M. Monteith (Ed.), Teaching primary literacy with ICT. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong, Australia: Deak in University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
Kamil, M., Intrator, S., & Kim, H. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and learning. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 771-788). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kress, G. (1997). Visual and verbal modes of representation in electronically mediated com¬munication: The potentials of new forms of text. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 53-79). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality: Challenges to Thinking About Language. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 337-340.
Kress, G. (2003). Genres and the multimodal production of ‘scientificness’. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 173-186). New York: Peter Lang.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: A grammar of visual design. London Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: A grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London Routledge.
Lemke, J. (1998a). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 283-302). New Jersey: Erlbaurn.
Lemke, J. (1998b). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In I. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87-113). London: Routledge.
Lemke, J. (2002). Travels in Hypermodality. Visual Communication, 1(3), 299-325.
Leu, D. (2006). New literacies, reading research and the challenges of change: A deictic perspective. In J. Hoffman, C. Shallert, J. Fairbanks & B. Maloch (Eds.), The 55th yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 1-20). Milwaukee, WI: National Reading Conference.
Leu, D., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (Vol. 5, pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2003a). A Telling Symbiosis in the Discourse of Hatred: Multimodal News Texts About the ‘Children Overboard’ Affair. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 1-16.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2003b). Working the Borders in Racist Discourse: The Challenge of the ‘‘Children Overboard Affair’’ in News Media Texts. Social Semiotics, 13(3), 283-303.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2004). Interacting with the Multimodal Text: Reflections on Image and Verbiage in Artexpress. Visual Communication, 3(1), 5-26.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company.
Martin, J. R. (2002). Fair trade: Negotiating meaning in multimodal texts. In P. Coppock (Ed.), The semiotics of writing: Transdisciplinary perspectives on the technology of writing, (pp. 311-338). Begijnhof, Belgium: Brepols & Indiana University Press.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (1st ed., Vol. 1). London/New York: Continuum.
O’ Halloran, K. (1999). Interdependence, Interaction and Metaphor in Multisemiotic Texts. Social Semiotics, 9(3), 317-338.
O’ Halloran, K. (2003a). Implications of mathematics as a multisemiotic discourse. In M. Anderson, A. Saenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger & V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: from thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 185-214). Brooklyn/Ottawa/Toronto: Legas Publishing.
O’ Halloran, K. (2003b). Intersemiosis in mathematics and science: Grammatical metaphor and semiotic metaphor. In A.M. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers & L. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor (pp. 337-366). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
O’Toole, M. (1994). The language of displayed art. London: Leicester University Press.
Royce, T. (1998). Synergy on the Page: Exploring Intersemiotic Complementarity in Page-Based Multimodal Text. Japan Association Systemic Functional Linguistics Occasional Papers, 2(1). 25-50.
Royce, T. D. (2007). Intersemiotic complementarity: A framework for multimodal discourse analysis. In T. D. Royce & W. L. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Russell, G. (2000). Print-based and visual discourses in schools: Implications for pedagogy. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 27(2), 205-217.
Unsworth, L. (2006). Towards a Metalanguage for Multiliteracies Education: Describing the Meaning Making Resources of Language-Image Interaction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, May, 2006, Vol. 5, Number 1, pp.55-76.
Unsworth, L. (2008a). Multimodal Semiotics: Functional analysis in contexts of education. London/New York: Continuum.
Unsworth, L. (2008b). Multiliteracies and Metalanguage: Describing image/text relations as a resource for negotiating multimodal texts. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear & D.J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research of new literacies. Lawrence Erlbaum: New York.
Unsworth, L., Thomas, A., & Bush, R. (2004). The Role of Text-Image Relations in Group “Basic Skills Tests” of Literacy for Children in the Primary School Years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 27(1), 46-55.
van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discousce and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2013-2024 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.
International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies
You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.