Semiotic work: Applied Linguistics and a social semiotic account of Multimodality

Gunther Kress
Institute of Education
Abstract

This article imagines a tussle between Multimodality, focused on ‘modes’, and Applied Linguistics (AL), based on ‘language’. A Social Semiotic approach to MM treats speech and writing as modes with distinct affordances, and, as all modes, treats them as ‘partial’ means of communication. The implications of partiality confound long-held assumptions of the sufficiency of ‘language’ for all communicational needs: an assumption shared by AL. Given MM’s plurality of modes and the diversity of audiences, design moves into focus, with a shift from competent performance to apt design. Principles of composition — e.g. linearity versus modularity — become crucial, raising the question at the heart of this paper: how do AL and MM deal with the shape of the contemporary semiotic landscape?

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Coulthard, M
1992 Forensic Discourse Analysis. Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge,Google Scholar
Ellis, R
2008 The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fisiak, J
1981 Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher [Language Teaching Methodology Series]. Oxford: Pergamon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, R.R.K
(ed) 2003 Lexicography. Critical Concepts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
König, E. & Gast, V
2009 Understanding English-German Contrasts. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Kress, G
2010 Multimodality. A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T
2001 Multimodal Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J. & Tsatsarelis, C
2001 Multimodal Teaching and Learning. The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lado, R
1957 Second Language Acquisition. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Here I list key works which have informed my discussion of Multimodality in this paper
Barthes, R
1973 Mythologies. St. Albans: Paladin.Google Scholar
Bauman, Z
2000 Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bezemer, J. & Kress, G
2015 The textbook in a changing multimodal landscape. In Language in Multimodal Contexts, N. Klug & H. Stöckl (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bezemer, J., Cope, A., Kress, G. & Kneebone, R
2014 Holding the scalpel: Achieving surgical care in a learning environment. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 43(1): 38–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bezemer, J. & Kress, G
2014 Touch: A resource for making meaning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 37(2): 77–85.Google Scholar
Bezemer, J., Kress, G., Cope, A. & Kneebone, R
2012 Learning in the operating theatre: A social semiotic perspective. In Work-based Learning in Clinical Settings: Insights from Socio-cultural Perspectives, V. Cook, C. Daly & M. Newman (eds), 125–141. Abingdon: Radcliffe.Google Scholar
Bezemer, J
2008 Displaying orientation in the classroom: Students’ multimodal responses to teacher instructions. Linguistics and Education 19(2): 166–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bezemer, J. & Kress, G
2008 Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication 25(2): 166–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franks, A
1996 Drama education, the body and representation (or, the mystery of the missing bodies). Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance 1: 105–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jewitt, C
(ed.) 2014 The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G
1971 Sentence complexity in contrastive linguistics. In (ERIC) Papers in Contrastive Linguistics, G. Nickel (ed.). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1997 Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2000 Text as the punctuation of semiosis: Pulling at some of the threads. In Intertextuality and the Media. From Genre to Everyday Life, U.H. Meinhof & J. Smith (eds), 132–153. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T
2006 Reading Images: A Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Bourne, J., Franks, A., Hardcastle, J., Jones, K. & Reid, E
2005 English in Urban Classrooms: Multimodal Perspectives on Teaching and Learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindstrand, F. & Insulander, E
2014 Setting the ground for engagement: Multimodal perspectives on exhibition design. Designs for Learning 5(1-2): 30–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mavers, D
2011 Children’s Drawing and Writing: The Remarkable in the Unremarkable. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
New London Group
1996 A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66(1): 60–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newfield, D
2014 Transformation, transduction and the transmodal moment. In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, C. Jewitt (ed.), 100–113. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pelletier, C
2007 Learning through design: Subjectivity and meaning in young people’s computer game production work. PhD dissertation, University of London.
Stein, P
2008 Multimodal Pedagogies in diverse Classrooms. Representation, Rights and Resources. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Unsworth, L
(ed.) 2008 Multimodal Semiotics: Functional Analysis in Contexts of Education. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Wulf, C. et al.
2010 Ritual and Identity. The Staging and Performing of Rituals in the Lives of Young People. London: Tufnell.Google Scholar
Yandell, J
2013 The Social Construction of Meaning. Reading Literature in Urban English Classrooms. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar