Email this article How to do things with modes. Transmodality in slides
Abstract
Slideshows are ubiquitous in today’s academic events such as university lectures. Thus, it appears imperative to investigate the evolution of the modes which are implemented in processes of knowledge communication through slideshows. In particular, this study focuses on the complex relations between texts and images and on the multifaceted functions that different modes assume.
A corpus of lecture slides drawn from the MIT OpenCourseWare site is investigated from a transmodal perspective by adopting a qualitative approach. The analysis shows that the production of slides is based on the exploitation of multiple modes which co-act for the fulfillment of different pragmatic needs (e.g. informative, persuasive, or interactional) and assume a mutually constructive function.
This paper also argues for the significance of transmodal research in academic contexts, especially in the light of the constant technological and epistemological shift which accompanies the evolution of teaching practices in higher education. Indeed, a transmodal approach can facilitate a wider understanding of the affordances and limitations of the different semiotic resources, which need to be conceived from a complementary and syncretic perspective.
References
Andrews R. 2014, A Theory of Contemporary Rhetoric, London, Routledge.
Anesa, P. 2019 forth., Syncretic Modality in Slideshows: Towards a Reconceptualization of Visuals? Ibérica 38.
Archer A. 2012, Writing as Design: Enabling Access to Academic Discourse in a Multimodal Environment, South African Journal of Higher Education 26[3], pp. 411-421.
Arneson J. and Offerdahl E. 2018, Visual Literacy in Bloom: Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Support Visual Learning Skills, Cell Biology Education 17, ar7, pp. 1-8.
Arola K. 2010, The Design of Web 2.0: The Rise of the Template, the Fall of Design, Computers and Composition 27, pp. 4-14.
Bertin J. 1973, Sémiologie graphique. Les diagrammes, les réseaux, les cartes, Paris/La Haye, Mouton; Paris, Gauthier-Villars.
Blommaert J. 2013, Ethnography, Superdiversity, and Linguistic Landscapes, Bristol, Multilingual Matters.
Bucher H. and Niemann P. 2012, Visualizing Science: The Reception of PowerPoint Presentations, Visual Communication 11[3], pp. 283-306.
Canagarajah S. 2018, Translingual Practice as Spatial Repertoires: Expanding the Paradigm beyond Structuralist Orientations, Applied Linguistics 39[1], pp. 31-54.
Crawford-Camiciottoli B. 2018, Representing Culture in Opencourseware Lectures: A Corpus-Based Semantic Analysis, Lingue e Linguaggi 28, pp. 33-47.
Gershon N., Eick S. G. and Card S. 1998, Information Visualization, Interactions 5[2], pp. 9-15.
Hull G. A. and Nelson M. E. 2005, Locating the Semiotic Power of Multimodality, Written Communication, 22[2], pp. 224-261.
Kress, G. 2003, Literacy in the New Media Age, London, Routledge.
Kress G. and van Leeuwen T. 2001, Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication, London, Arnold.
Lei S. A., Cohen J. L. and Russler K. M. 2010, Humor Learning in the College Classroom: Evaluating Benefits and Drawbacks from Instructors’ Perspectives, Journal of Instructional Education 37[4], pp. 326-331.
Lemke J. 1998, Multiplying Meaning: Visual and Verbal Semiotics in Scientific Text, in J. Martin R. and Veel R. (eds), Reading Science, London, Routledge, pp. 87-113.
Literat I., Conover A., Herbert-Wasson E., Kirsch Page K., Riina-Ferrie J., Stephens R. Thanapornsangsuth S. and Vasudevan L. 2018, Toward Multimodal Inquiry: Opportunities, Challenges and Implications of Multimodality for Research and Scholarship, Higher Education Research & Development 37[3], pp. 565-578.
Malinowski D. and Nelson M. E. 2010, What Now for Language in a Multimedial World? in Ho C. M. L., Leong A. P. and Anderson K. T. (eds), Transforming Literacies and Language: Multimodality and Literacy in the New Media Age, London, Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, pp. 51-69.
Marsh E. J. and Sink H. E. 2010, Access to Handouts of Presentation Slides During Lectures: Consequences for Learning, Applied Cognitive Psychology 24, pp. 691-706.
Mitchell W. J. T. 1994, Picture Theory. Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Murphy K. 2012, Transmodality and Temporality in Design Interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 44[14], pp. 1966-1981.
Offerdahl E. and Arneson J. 2017, Lighten the Load: Scaffolding Visual Literacy in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, CBE—Life Sciences Education 16:es1, pp. 1-11.
Olson A. 2018, Perspectives on Structural Molecular Biology Visualization: From Past to Present, Journal of Molecular Biology 430[21], pp. 3997-4012.
Rowley-Jolivet E. 2002, Visual Discourse in Scientific Conference Papers: A Genre-Based Study, English for Specific Purposes 21, pp. 19-40.
Simpson Z. 2016, Drawn Writing: The Role of Written Text in Civil Engineering Drawing, in Breuer E. and Archer A. (eds), Multimodality in Higher Education, Leiden, BRILL, pp. 241-255.
Sipe, L. R. 1998, How Picture Books Work: A Semiotically Framed Theory of Text-Picture Relationships, Children’s Literature in Education 29[2], pp. 97-08.
Stark D. and Paravel V. 2008, PowerPoint in Public: Digital Technologies and the New Morphology of Demonstration, Theory, Culture & Society 25[5], pp. 30-55.
van Leeuwen T. 2005, Introducing Social Semiotics, London & New York, Routledge.
van Leeuwen T. 2008, New Forms of Writing, New Visual Competencies, Visual Studies 23[2], pp. 130-135.
Yates J. and Orlikowski W. 2007, The PowerPoint Presentation and its Corollaries: How Genres Shape Communicative Action in Organizations, in Zachry M. and Thralls C. (eds), Communicative Practices in Workplaces and the Professions: Cultural Perspectives on the Regulation of Discourse and Organizations, Amityville, NY, Baywood, pp. 67-91.
Zhao S., Djonov E. and van Leeuwen T. 2014, Semiotic Technology and Practice: A Multimodal Social Semiotic Approach to PowerPoint, Text & Talk 34[3], pp. 349-375.
Full Text: pdf
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
