IMAGE AND VISUALITY IN SOCIOCULTURAL DIMENSION
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2021-2-96-109
The article discusses the challenges and opportunities posed by the visual turn and visual studies in the investigation of communication. The theoretical framework of the article was found in the modern concepts of multimodal communication. The article focuses on the role of a visual image in shaping our sociocultural experience and knowledge. The main research question is as follows: how communicative actors produce and interpret meanings through visual images. Visuality is considered as a semiotic resource of meaning making that is socially constructed and culturally given. The article looks at images as they are context sensitive and represent information from the sociocultural environment. The methodology of the present analysis is in line with social and cultural semiotics, and reflects the main principles of text and cultural linguistics. The findings and implications can be summarized as follows. First, the article sketches out a linguistic, or, to be more precise, text linguistic, view on multimodality and summarizes the main approaches to the visual medium of communication compared with language. The point of departure is a methodological shift within linguistics from logocentrism towards multimodality and visual resources of meaning making. In the research papers in the 2000s, linguists also legitimized the pictorial and multimodal turn. Visuality is now at the cross-point of research interests of many modern disciplines such as text linguistics, stylistics, cognitive linguistics. Multimodal texts are considered a crucial object to investigate the meaning making in its sociocultural embeddedness. Second, the suggested inquiry is in line with the issue of intericonicity and reveals the explanatory charge of visual intertextuality. I show that pictures, image-language links may emerge as rooted in certain sociocultural practices as a part of the cultural knowledge of communicators. That means they may be dependent upon the knowledge of previously encountered texts or meanings. Visual intertextuality is considered a form of intericonicity, which reflects the intersemiotic translation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems. I show visual intertextuality in current Russian communicative practice as a means of meaning making through reference on images or image-language links. A conclusion looks at some requirements and directions for further research. Images may provide a new access point to investigation of the cognitive dimension of meaning making and its sociocultural dimension. They allow us to observe the forms in which socially shaped and shared experience is fixed. The visual resource provides an access to contextualization: images are context sensitive and context embedded. The use and interpretation of images gives a special angle for the active, social construction of reality through semiotic (visual) resources.
Keywords: multimodality, visual intertextuality, intericonicity, sociocultural context
References:
Chernyavskaya, V. E. (2012). Diskurs vlasti i vlast’ diskursa. Problemy rechevogo vozdeystviya [The discourse of power and the power of discourse. Problems of speech impact]. Flinta.
Chernyavskaya, V. E. (2020). Metapragmatics: When the author brings meaning and the addressee context. Vestnik SPbGU. Yazyk i literatura – Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Language and Literature, 17(1), 135–147. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2020.109
Feng, W. D. (2017). Metonymy and visual representation: towards a social semiotic framework of visual metonymy. Visual Communication, 16(4), 441–466.
Gasparyan, G., & Cherniavskaia, V. (2014). Text as coexistence in discourse. Voprosy Kognitivnoi Lingvistiki, 4. 44–51.
Iedema, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multisemiotic practice. Visual Communication, 2(1), 29–57.
Inishev, I. N. (2012). The ”iconic turn” in the theories of culture and society. Logos, 1(85), 184–211. (In Russian).
Jakobson, R. (2004). On linguistic aspects of translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 138–143). 2nd edition. Routledge.
Jancsary, D., Höllerer, M. A., & Meyer, R. E. (2016). Critical analysis of visual and multimodal texts. In R. Wodak, M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (pp. 180–204). 3rd edition. SAGE Publications.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. The modes and media of contemporary communication. Arnold.
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images. The grammar of visual design. 2nd edition. Routledge.
Kuße, H., & Chernyavskaya, V. (2019). Culture: Towards its explanatory charge in discourse linguistics. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Yazyk i Literatura – Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Language and Literature, 16(3), 444–462.
Liu, Y., & O’Halloran, K. (2009). Intersemiotic texture: Analyzing cohesive devices between language and images. Social Semiotics, 19(4), 367–388.
Lotman, Yu. M. (1970). Struktura khudozhestvennogo teksta [The structure of the artistic text]. Iskusstvo.
Meyer, R. E., Jancsary, D., Höllerer, M. A., & Boxenbaum, E. (2018). The role of verbal and visual text in the process of institutionalization. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 392–418.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994). Picture theory: Essays on visual and verbal representation. University of Chicago Press.
Molodychenko, E. N. (2017). Identity and discourse: from social theory to practice of discourse analysis, Nauchno-tekhnicheskie vedomosti Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta. Gumanitarnye i obshchestvennye nauki – St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Humanities and Social Sciences, 8(3), 122–133. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18721/Jhss.8312
Molodychenko, E. N. (2019). “Lifestyle instruction” as an internet genre in consumer culture: A communicative-pragmatic perspective. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philology, 57, 79–102. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/57/5
Nechkina, M. V. (1968). Funktsiya khudozhestvennogo obraza v istoricheskom protsesse [The function of the artistic image in the historical process]. In B. S. Meylakh (Ed.), Sodruzhestvo nauk i tayny tvorchestva [Union of sciences and secrets of creativity] (pp. 61–98). Iskusstvo.
Norris, S. (Ed.) (2012). Multimodality in practice: Investigating theory-in-practice-through-methodology. Routledge.
Pauwels, L. (2010). Visual sociology reframed: An analytical synthesis and discussion of visual methods in social and cultural research. Sociological Methods and Research, 38(4), pp. 545–581.
Rose, G. (2001.). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. Sage.
Schmitz, U. (2004). Sprache in modernen Medien. Einführung in Tatsachen und Theorien, Themen und Thesen. Erich Schmidt.
Stocchetti, M., & Kukkonen, K. (Eds) (2011). Images in use: Towards the critical analysis of visual communication. John Benjamins.
Stöckl, H. (2009). The language-image-text – Theoretical and analytical inroads into semiotic complexity. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 34(2), 203–226.
( 414.1 kB ) 
( 410.23 kB )
Issue: 2, 2021
Series of issue: Issue 2
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 96 — 109
Downloads: 989