Scarica Cohesion and Coherence in Texts: A Functional and Multimodal Approach e più Dispense in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity!
Language and communication
Borrowing the American ethnographer Dell Hymes’s (1972) words, according to whom communication is a question of “who says what to whom, how, where, and why”, any act of communication is interpreted as involving a message (what and what genre), which develops interaction among the interactive participants (sender/addressor as the who; receiver/addressee as the to whom), through a/the available channel/s (the how in terms of speaking, writing, painting, blowing, whistling, singing, drumming, smelling, tasting, tactile sensation, and others) in the form of a/the modes/codes of use (the how as linguistic, paralinguistic, kinesics, musical, interpretative, interactional and other), in a setting (where), for a specific purpose and with a definite effect (why). Coherence and Cohesion When a sequence of words/sentences make sense, hold together and are semantically set up, we are dealing with a text, the length of which may vary. A text varies in its length and may actually be composed of
- a single word, i.e. “Listen, please!”
- more words, i.e. “ Today I bought the newspaper as I wanted to know about the latest news on the crisis in Europe”
- no words, i.e. The three examples of texts have all a meaning in relation to the context of situation and of culture in which they are processed. The length of the text does not give strength to the text meaning and to the functionality of its message. The examples of texts mentioned above are all consistent in the use of the pronominal system of reference, tense structure and connectives which contribute to defining them as cohesive. A text which is said to be consistent with itself as far as its surface structure is concerned is cohesive. The three texts above mentioned are all coherent and consistent with the context of situation in and for which they were produced; they are logically organised and developed with respect to the world as it is known. Cohesion and coherence work together and should not be examined separately while investigating into texts; cohesion reveals to what extent a text is lexicogramatically organised, in terms of surface structure, while coherence concerns the way/s in which a text is semantically set up, but it has also
to do with the surface structure of a text, particularly with the way in which information is organised and developed. The context of situation and text features Texts develop and are built around the context of situation , which refers to all those extra- linguistic factors having some bearing on the text itself. The context of situation, as introduced by Malinowski (1923), focuses on what precedes the text, the situation which comes before it, and contributes to embedding a text thus outlining its meaning and features. The text features that Spencer and Gregory (1964) called field, tenor, and mode, describe how the context of situation determines the kinds of meaning that are expressed. The field identifies the social action and corresponds to the total event, the subject-matter around which the text functions; the mode is the function of the text in the event, including the channel taken by the language (written, spoken) and the genre (the rhetorical mode as narrative, didactic, persuasive, etc). The tenor refers to the type of the interaction, the set of relevant social relations, permanent and temporary, among the participants involved. Table 1 Text features FIELD TENOR MODE SOCIAL ACTION ROLE STRUCTURE SYMBOLIC ORGANISATION WHAT IS GOING ON WHO IS TAKING PART HOW THE MEANINGS ARE BEING EXCHANGED e.g. A university lecture vs a birthday party e.g. sender vs receiver e.g. written vs spoken Field, tenor and mode interact simultaneously in connected texts and activate the functional components or metafunctions of the semantic system. LANGUAGE AND METAFUNCTIONS: VERBAL ANALYSIS Following Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) view of language as social semiotic, which satisfies human needs of communication and interaction in a socio-cultural context, four claims are made about language by the scholar, and may be summarised as follows:
- language is functional in terms of what it is used for, what can be done with it;
Senser: who feels/thinks/perceives a phenomeon: what is felt/thought/perceived Examples: 1.Perception : He(senser) heard her singing(phenomonon) 2.Affection: My sister (senser) liked (mental/affection p.) the gift (phenomeon) 3.Cognition: He (senser) believed her story (phenomenon)
3. RELATIONAL PROCESS (Act of being) PARTICIPANTS: CARRIER and ATTRIBUTE; IDENTIFIER and IDENTIFIED 3.1 INTENSIVE (attributive/identifying): X is A 3.2 CIRCUMSTANTIAL (attributive/identifying): X is at A 3.3 POSSESSIVE (attributive/identifying): X has A 3.1 INTENSIVE ( X is A) Examples:
- Intensive attributive (A as an attribute of X): Sara (carrier) is wise (attribute, she is a member of the class of wise people)
- Intensive Identifying (A as the identity of X): Elizabeth II (identified) is the Queen of England (identifier) 3.2 CIRCUMSTANTIAL (X is at A) Examples:
- Attributive: The party (carrier) is on Friday (circumstance)
- Identifying: Tomorrow (identified) is the 29th^ April 2011 (identifier) 3.3 POSSESSIVE (X has A) Examples:
- Attributive: Sara (carrier/possessor) has (r.p.) a piano (attribute/thing possessed)
- Identifying: The piano (identified/thing possessed) is ( r.p.) Sara’s (Identifier) 4. VERBAL PROCESS PARTICIPANTS : SAYER, RECEIVER, TARGET, VERBIAGE
VERBAL PROCESS: process of saying Examples: 1.He (sayer) told (v. p.) me (receiver) the truth (verbiage) 2.He (sayer) blamed (v.p.) his sister (target) for the loss (circumstance of reason) 3.He (sayer) spoke (v.p.) as Chairman of the committee (circumstance of role)
5. BEHAVIOURAL PROCESS PARTICIPANTS : BEHAVER VERBAL PROCESS: process of behaving Examples: She (behaver) is weeping (b.p.) for him (beneficiary) 6. EXISTENTIAL PROCESS PARTICIPANTS : EXISTENT VERBAL PROCESS: process of existing/happening Examples: 1.There was a storm (existent event) 2.There is a man at the door (existent entity) OTHER PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS : 1. BENEFICIARY someone for whom the process is said to take place Examples: 1.She sent her best wishes to John 2.He is doing all this for his mother 3.The hotel charged me 10 euro for the call 4. I was charged 10 euro for the call 2. RANGE the range/scope of the process Examples:
- They are playing to win
speaker/writer as the giver of subjective positions in the discourse, and the listener/reader as a supplier but also a replier of information; ● Speech function In the act of producing her/his message, the producer adopts a specific speech role, and in so doing a complementary role is assigned to the receiver who will willingly reply by developing speech role interaction. The primary types of speech role are giving and demanding information. Either the producer is giving information to the receiver or s/he is demanding information from her/him. Both giving and demanding something may be defined as interactive acts which prompt exchange. The giving process implies receiving something, while the demanding process implies giving something in response. Another distinction can be done which is equally relevant to outline interactive processing; it involves good and services or information exchange. The former implies non- verbal exchange, as it usually occurs when A is saying something to B expecting B to do/give something back to A. What is being demanded is either an action or an object, language is used to have the process done: this is an exchange of good and services. What is being demanded here is information; language is the end, the mean and the answer will be verbal: this is a verbal exchange of information. Both exchanging good and services and information define the four primary speech functions:
- Offer : Would you like some tea?
- Command : Give me some tea!
- Statement : She is giving her daughter some tea.
- Question : What is her mother giving to her? ● Exchange of information (verbal expectation): ❖ Propositions v Proposals : when the language is used to exchange information, the message (clause/s) may take the form of a PROPOSITION or a PROPOSAL. Propositions may be argued about, denied, affirmed, doubted, contradicted, insisted on, accepted (with reservation), qualified, tempered, regretted, and so on. Statements and questions are propositions as they can be affirmed or denied, they exchange information. Conversely, offers and commands cannot be affirmed or denied, and as proposals they exchange goods and services. ❖ I, you, we pronouns ● Modality
Modality is the grammaticalized expression of the subjective attitudes and opinions of the speaker including possibility, probability, necessity, obligation, permissibility, ability, desire, and contingency. It can be: ❖ epistemic → Different degrees of possibility/frequency in formulating statements and/or judgments. Es. You must be crazy (statement/assertion). Epistemic modality is crucial in argumentative texts (i.e. editorial comments in newspapers) where the writer/speaker may prefer to mitigate her/his statements when subscribing to a given opinion/view. ❖ deontic → Different degrees of obligation/permission/necessity. Es. You must be careful (direction/command). Deontic modality is at play especially in directive/instructive texts (e.g. advertisements, legal documents) although even editorial comments may contain, besides the argumentative/evaluative component, a directive component in the form of suggestions. Modality is encoded by modal verbs proper and/or by modal adjuncts/elements (adverbs, prepositional phrases, nominalisations, etc.). Table 1****. Epistemic and Deontic modality EPISTEMIC MODALITY (concerned with the speaker’s attitude about the factual status of the proposition)
SPECULATIV
E
MAY
MIGHT
COULD
Possibility The possibility that a judgement is true Ex: (it is 9 a.m. on Sunday morning) She is not at home: she may be out for a walk. Try again in 30 minutes if you do not find her. DEDUCTIVE
MUST
SHOULD
CANNOT
Necessity The only possibility, deduction from facts known to the speaker Ex: (the lights are on.) She must be at home. ASSUMPTIVE WILL A reasonable conclusion which focuses on somebody’s assumption(s) Ex: (It is Sunday morning) She will be at home now (she is always at home at this time). DEONTIC MODALITY MUST The external necessity coming Ex: You must fill in
Reference → relates to what an expression refers to in the real world. For example, Wikibooks refers to the website where you can find this book. Barack Obama refers to the first black president of the United States. In the sentence Jimmy Wales, who founded Wikipedia, is an intelligent man , who refers to Jimmy Wales. Reference is the symbolic relationship that a linguistic expression has with the concrete object or abstraction it represents. A reference can be: I) Endophoric (within the text): the endophoric relationship is often spoken of as one expression “referring to” another. If the reference is endophoric , it can be either anaphoric (pointing backward, i.e. the referent is mentioned in a previous stretch of text: e.g. “ A well-dressed man was speaking; he had a foreign accent”) or cataphoric (pointing forward: e.g. “If you need one, there’s a towel in the top drawer”). II) Exophoric: reference to an element outside the physical space of the text (it refers to something existing in the text that relates to something existing outside the text). If the reference is exophoric, the referring element is called deictic (an element pointing to the specific participants in the interaction and/or to the surrounding context, e.g. “I”, “you”, “there”,“then”). The four types (depending on the grammatical category to which the referring expression belongs) of endophoric/exophoric reference are:
- personal reference → pronominals, possessives: she, he…;
- demonstrative reference → articles, demonstratives: there, those, that…;
- comparative reference → comparatives: same, similar…
- relative reference → relatives: who, which, that… Substitution → It refers to a process by which one element is substituted as the replacement of one item by another:
- nominal substitution (old man>one);
- verbal substitution (works>does);
- clausal substitution (they told him the truth, I suppose so). Ellipsis → By this we indicate the omission of an item (noun, verb, clause):
- nominal ellipsis : How did you enjoy the exhibition? - A lot (of the exhibition).
- verbal ellipsis : Have you been swimming? – Yes , I have.
- clausal ellipsis : I left my books here and somebody came in and either borrowed them or put them back on the shelf but didn’t say a word to me. I wish I could find out who (either borrowed or put my books on the shelf). Conjunction → It is not simply an anaphoric relation; conjunctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings, and they presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse:
- Addittive (aggiuntiva): and, or, nor, furthermore…
- Adversative (avversativa): but, though, yet…
- Causal (causale): because, for this reason, due to…
- Temporal (temporale): after, finally, at last, in the end…
b. Lexical cohesion Reiteration → is a form of lexical cohesion which involves the repetition of a lexical item, as an identical or related entity:
- Repetition (ripetizione): is an instance of using a word, phrase, or clause more than once in a short passage, dwelling on a point. Used deliberately, repetition can be an effective rhetorical strategy for achieving emphasis.
- Variation (variazione): there is more than one way of saying the same thing. I) Synonymy (sinonimo) → A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language; II) Antonymy (antonimìa) → A word having a meaning opposite to that of another word: e.g. The word "wet" is an antonym of the word "dry (e.g. in the case of verbs: walking out…stay in); III) Meronymy (meronimìa) [ part of ]→ a part of something used to refer to the whole, such as: “ faces meaning people” , as in “ they've seen a lot of faces come and go ”; IV) Hyponymy (iponimìa) [ kind of ]→ A word whose meaning is included in the meaning of another more general word; for example, bus is a hyponym of vehicle. Collocation → refers to a group of two or more words that usually go together. A good way to think of collocation is to look at the word collocation. Co - meaning together - location - meaning place. Collocations are words that are located together. Collocation is a group of two or more words that like to hang out together. E.g. with the verb “make” → make a cup of coffee / tea, make noise, make the bed, make a business deal, make a fuss, make sense, make time for someone. E.g. with the verb “do” → do the laundry, do the errands, do business with someone, do a chore, do the shopping. c. Clause relation Parataxis → the organization of clauses into related units of equal status (coordination). Hypotaxis → the organization of clauses into main and subordinate structural and semantic units (subordination). The subordinate, or secondary elements are dependent on the main clause. Expansion → it occurs when the secondary clause expands the primary clause by:
- Elaboration : elaborating, restating in other words, specifying in greater details, commenting, exemplifying;
- Extension : expanding, extending, adding informations;
- Enhancement : embellishing and qualifying with some circumstantial features of time, place, cause, or condition.
realised by two modes can be aligned, at other times they may be complementary and at other times each mode may be used to refer to distinct aspects of meaning and be contradictory or in tension. PICTURES AND METAFUNCTION: VISUAL ANALYSIS
An introduction to visual language
Reading through images: a functional approach Halliday’s systemic functional approach (1978, 1994), as a semiotic theory to analyse language and its functions in a context, was taken as an example by Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996/2006), the forerunners of a multimodal approach to reading images as meaning making constructs accompanied by a different mode, i.e. the verbal counterpart. Verbal-visual multimodality outlines the elements of both the visual mode and the verbal one and investigates how they might be semiotically connected or disconnected. The verbal and visual modes can be conceived (possono essere intesi come) of as cross-functional socio-semiotic forms and may provide the reading/viewing public with the necessary materials to decode both verbally and visually meaningful messages, as a coherent and cohesive representation of reality. Metafunctions contribute to constructing the socio-semiotic meaning/s the image reveals: ● Ideational function → examines what the participants do, by processing acts of doing, sensing, being, behaving, saying, reacting, interacting under certain circumstances: ● Interpersonal function → examines how the visual representation involves and interacts with the viewer, in terms of gaze, distance, perspective; ● Textual function → enables the viewer to examine the degree of cohesion and coherence of the represented message/s. Ideational functional 3.1.2 Participants (who is represented in the image) ● represented → participants who appear in the picture and do not interact with the others (us, other people/objects personified in the image). ● interactive → participants who communicate with us or with the other characters in the image (they are looking at us, are looking at each other). 3.1.3 Processes :
1. Narrative (the participants doing something): the participants narrate processes, events, actions. a. Action non transactional : a vector emanates from a participant but does not point at any other participant. We have a subject (es. titan) that carries out an action but doesn’t interact with a object. Es. Il titano Facebook sta mangiando il robot piccolo. Ipotizziamo che, anziché al robot, stia guardando in aria: questo è
un processo narrativo – perché sta mangiando il robot – ma, siccome non interagisce con l’oggetto dell’azione – non guarda il robot – l’azione è non transactional. Guarda in aria, non guarda né noi, né gli altri personaggi). b. Action transactional : a vector connects two participants. We have a subject, called “actor” (es. titan), that carries out an action and interacts with the object. Es. Il titano Facebook sta mangiando il robot piccolo. Ipotizziamo che mentre sta mangiando, guarda il robot piccolo con estremo gusto: questo è un processo narrativo – perché sta mangiando – e, siccome interagisce con l’oggetto dell’azione – guarda il robot – l’azione è transactional. An action transactional process can be: ● Unidirectional : a vector connects two represented participants; actor and goal don’t interact. Es. Prendiamo sempre il titano Facebook con il robot. Il robot ha la testa mozzata, quindi non può, per ovvi motivi, rivolgere lo sguardo al titano. L’azione è unidirectional perché in questo caso l’oggetto dell’azione è passivo. Un altro esempio è il titano Amazon, che raccoglie la casetta. Questa è un action transactional perché il titano sta compiendo un’azione. Sono coinvolti un soggetto (titano) e un oggetto (casa); è unidirectional perché la casetta non è inanimata, è passiva. ● Bidirectional : a vector connects two interactors. Es. Prendiamo sempre il titano Facebook con il robot. Immaginiamo che il robot non abbia la testa mozzata, e quindi sia tutto intero. Se guardasse il titano spaventato, l’azione sarebbe bidirectional perché in questo caso l’oggetto dell’azione è attivo, guarda a sua volta il titano). c. Reactional : eyeline connecting the participants: we have a reacter and a phenomenon. Like actions (both actional and reactional processes can co-exist), reactional processes can be transactional (an eyeline vector connects the reactor and the phenomenon) or non-transactional (an eyeline vector emanates from the reacter but does not point at another participant), unidirectional or bidirectional as an actional transactional process. Es. Il titano Amazon sta raccogliendo la casetta per metterla nel suo carrellino. Nel farlo, sta anche guardando direttamente la casetta. Abbiamo un soggetto (il titano) e un oggetto (la casetta). Il titano rivolge il suo sguardo alla casetta e questo implica un coinvolgimento. Abbiamo, oltre un processo narrativo, anche uno reazionale. In questo caso, l’azione è non transactional , perché il titano sta guardando la casetta ma la casetta, essendo inanimata, non può restituire lo sguardo al titano (quindi è anche unidirectional : solo il titano guarda la casetta). Prendiamo ora in considerazione il titano Facebook. Ipotizziamo che il robot piccolo fosse vivo e stesse guardando spaventato il titano che, a sua volta, guarda il robot. In questo caso, avremmo un’azione transactional , in quanto si è stabilita un’interazione in termini di sguardo (che quindi risulterebbe bidirectional , perché il robot sta rispondendo allo sguardo del titano).
a. locative : foregrounded participant/s obscuring the setting; neutral setting; desaturated setting; darker/lighter setting b. means : tools which are used by a participant and are linked to him/her without a vector. c. accompaniment : what/who accompanies the participant/s. Interpersonal function 3.2.1 Gaze : the participants estabilish visual contact with the viewer. ● direct address ( demand image ) → represented participants look directly at the viewer (eye contact). ● indirect adress ( offer image ) → represented participants don’t look at the viewer. 3.2.2. Distance : estabilishes the degree of proximity to or farness from the viewer. ● Very close shot →less than head and shoulders; ● Close shot → head and shoulder; ● Medium close shot → human figure cut off at waist; ● Medium long shot → full lenght human figure; ● Long shot → human figure occupies approximately half the height of the image; ● Very long shot → the distance is even greater. 3.2.3. Perspective: è la prospettiva dell’immagine. Abbiamo ● Horizontal angle: I) frontal → estabilishes involvement/interaction II) oblique →estabilishes detachment/no interaction ● Vertical angle I) high angle → the viewer will be involved in a relation of superiority [io viewer guardo in basso, sono in posizione di superiorità (higher position); il participant è in posizione di inferiorità]; II) medium angle → the viewer will feel in a position of equality [io viewer e il participant siamo allo stesso livello (equality)]; III) low angle → the viewer will feel in a state of inferiority [io viewer guardo in alto e sono in uno stato di inferiorità; il participant è in posizione di superiorità (powerful position), perché guarda il viewer che sta in basso]. Textual function ➔ vertical reading path 3.3.1 Top/Ideal (what might be): it visualises the idealised and generalised essence of information; it intends to show us “what it might be” [in alto troviamo qualcosa di ideale, è l’essenza idealizzata e generalizzata dell’informazione. Ci mostra “cosa potrebbe essere”].
3.3.2. Bottom/real (what it is) → it visualises the real. It represents more down to earth information, it tends to be informative and shows what is [in basso troviamo qualcosa di reale, informazioni più “terra a terra”]. 3.3.3. Centre/Margin (core/ancillary elements) → the center visualises the nucleus of information, the margin shows ancillary elements [il centro visualizza il nucleo dell’informazione (mediator); il margine visualizza elementi ancillari e dipendenti dal centro]. ➔ orizontal reading path Left/given (already known information) → elements on the left represent the Given, what the viewer is assumed to know already, as part of his/her cultural background [è la parte in cui risiedono informazioni date per scontate, qualcosa che il lettore è tenuto già a conoscere. Gli elementi a sinistra sono presentati come DATI]. Right/new (unknown information) → it is the side of the new, what the viewer must pay particular attention to, what is not known and not already agreed upon by the viewer; the new is problematic [è la parte in cui risiede l’informazione chiave, è qualcosa di nuovo a cui il lettore deve porre particolare attenzione. Gli elementi a destra sono presentati come NUOVI]. ➔ Salience → Elements attract the reader’s/viewer attention to different degrees, and through a wide variety of means. Elements may be placed in the foreground or background, they may vary in size, colours, shapes. ➔ Framing (connection v disconnection) → the elements of a layout may either be disconnected or connected. Elements may be strongly or weakly framed [è come viene inquadrata l’immagine. Importanti sono le connessioni o le disconnessioni presenti all’interno di essa (es. elementi attivi/passivi; elementi statici/dinamici etc…)]: I) Connection : can be realised by the repetition of formal features, by vectors. Is the degree to wich an element is visually joined to another element, through the absence of framing devices, through vectors and continuities [è il grado in cui un elemento è visualmente collegato ad un altro, attraverso l’assenza di strumenti di framing, vettori ed elementi di continuità]. II) Disconnection : is obtained by empty space between elements and by using different frames, separate units. Is the degree to which an element is usually separated from other elements through framelines, pictorial framing devices, empty space between elements, discontinuities of colour and shape [è il grado in cui un elemento è visualmente separato da altri elementi attraverso framelines, spazi vuoti tra gli elementi, discontinuità di colori e forme].
Communicating through metaphors
VERBAL METAPHORS
Lakoff and Johnson (1980/2003) defined metaphor as “understanding and experiencing one kind of things in terms of another”, claiming that we are pervaded by metaphorical thoughts and expressions in everyday life. Metaphors are intended to trigger social interaction. The metaphorical processing involves a set of participants, who co-operate and share the meanings which the non-literal messages/s were planned to convey, and the objectives, which they were aimed to achieve.
● Look how far we’ve come; ● We are at crossroads; ● We’ll just have to go our separate ways; ● I don’t think this relationship is going anywhere. VISUAL METAPHORS Forceville (1994) investigates visual metaphors and postulates that when a metaphor is rendered visually, an expected visual element is replaced by an unexpected one, and he points out that that pictorial element in a picture is represented in such a way that a viewer of the picture is forced to understand or experience that element in terms of another element (whether or not visibly present in the picture itself) without there being a pre-existent or conventional connection between these two elements (e.g. in advertisement: a shoe replacing a tie on a man). Monomodal and multimodal metaphors Faithful to Lakoff and Johnson’s cognitive approach, and following Kress and Van Leeuwen’s definition of multimodality which highlights the simultaneous realisation of discourses and types of interaction of modes, Forceville explains what monomodal and multimodal metaphors are: ● Monomodal metaphors → the source and the target are both in the picture [both target and source domains are expressed in a single mode, either verbal or visual]; ● Multimodal metaphors → we can identify two cases: I) The target in the picture, the source in the text; II) The source in the picture, the target in the text. [if target and source domain are rendered in two different sign systems (visual, written, spoken) or modes of Perception (smell, taste, touch), even if the “A is B” format is maintained] Forceville’s approach to visual metaphors (1994-2011) The author distinguishes four type of visual metaphors and provides substantial evidence of what characterises each type in his studies: ● Contextual metaphors → something has a meaning in a specific situation. An object is represented in an unexpected visual context, object A is understood being object B due to the context in which it is portrayed (a object or a person is represented in a context that is different from its/her/his). The visually represented entity is the target, while the visually suggested entity is the source, which is inferred by the viewer thanks to the context of expression. ● Integrated metaphors → we have one element looking like another one. A looks like B, even without being provided a specific context. E.g. the British Minister (A) in the article looking like Uncle Same (B). Setting is white, no context, we can only see that A is similar to B.
● Hybrid metaphors → thee visual representation portrays an impossible entity in the world, showing two objects. A and B, which are usually understood as two different entities, belonging to two different domains, are exceptionally visualised as belonging to the same. That type of metaphor is often used by The Economist. This metaphor represents something that is pure invention; shows something that doesn’t exist. E.g. Facebook, Google, Amazon are not real titans. We’ve got a semantic transfer. ● Pictorial simile → Two object are represented in their entirety and are made to look similar, A is like B formar. This juxtaposition is a sort of invitation addressed to the viewer to compare two entitities and the verbal text prompts a natural connection, and triggers the process of mapping from A to B. A takes the shape of B. E.g. a sexy lady takes the shape of a perfume (e.g. Kenzo). VERBAL VS VISUAL METAPHORS ● Concept of immediacy → the visual mode provides immediate understanding (context and word knowledge); ● Temporal and spatial sequencing → the verbal mode is better at representing actions and their chronological sequences. ● The process of domestication (Morris, 1993) → knotty and abstract concepts when visualised are made accessible and easily comprehensible and understandable: ● The concept of condensation (Morris, 1993) → images are better at representing single entities, while the verbal mode may describe both a plurality and single entities.
