The Designs andr Natural Characteristics of the Semiotic Resources - Assignment Example

ASSIGNMENT 2 Part 1 Multimodality is an approach to language use that is focused on describing how people use various resources, known as semiotic resources, to convey meaning in the manner in which they communicate. To understand the concept of multimodality better, it is necessary to revisit the related concept of monomodality. Monomodality refers to the manner in which individuals communicate with each other by relying on one mode. There are various modes that people use when they communicate with each other. For example, people may use text to convey their intended meaning in the course of communication. People may also use sound, images and other semiotic resources when communicating. Therefore, semiotic resources provide a means by which individuals convey their intended meaning, or discourse, in the course of communicating with each other. When communication is carried out using a single mode, it can be described as monomodal. Under this approach, meaning makers stick to one mode and rely on it to convey their intended meaning. For example, text may be used to convey the intended meaning in the form of a book. Similarly, one of the other modes or semiotic resources may be used to convey meaning under the monomodal approach to communication. The underlying theory of multimodality is Halliday’s social semiotic theory. Under this theory, language is viewed as a currency that individuals use to interact with each other and communicate their intended meanings in the course of communicating (Bateman, 2008, p. 179). It is further stated under this theory that all the semiotic resources that can be used in the course of communication have particular designs (Bateman, 2008, p. 180). The designs or natural characteristics of the semiotic resources that can be used for any form of communication make it possible for individuals to use various modes at the same time when communicating with other people. The second theoretical assumption that underlies multimodality relates to how the semiotic resources change over the course of time. The assumption is that all the resources that are used to make meaning in communication undergo changes related to those that take place in the society. In other words, the resources that individuals use to communicate with each other change to reflect the social and cultural changes that occur in the society. Thus, the manner in which people use the resources to make meaning reflects the actual changes that take place in any society over time. The third theoretical assumption that is associated with multimodality relates to the way people rely on the underlying interrelationships among different semiotic resources to make meaning. It is observed that individuals rely on the intermodal relationships to convey particular meanings when they are communicating (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2005, p. 2). The way people use various modes in unison is governed by particular rules. Thus, individuals abide by the rules when using language to communicate their conceptualisation of phenomena in the society. Multimodality can be understood in relation to established approaches to genre and discourse in applied linguistics in various ways. The essence of the different ways in which multimodality is applicable to genre and discourse in applied linguistics is the systemic functional linguistic (SFL) approach. Under the SFL approach, language is seen as a highly complex set of meanings that are used by people in equally complex and fluid ways to facilitate communication and interaction (Hyon, 1996, p. 695). One of the ways in which multimodality can be understood in relation to genre is the objectives of the relationship between genre and multimodality. In general, genre is defined as a form of predictable pattern of using language and other related resources within a context that facilitates the achievement of particular social goals (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2005, p. 3). It is stated that the use of genre within a multimodal context is aimed at achieving three key objectives (Hyon, 1996, p. 695). The first objective is to describe the social functions of genre (Swales, 1990, p. 35). In theory as well as practice, particular genre types play important roles in the process of communication. Thus, the most important way in which multimodality relates to genre is to describe the major social functions of genre. Another important objective of the interaction between genre and multimodality relates to the manner in which individuals compare texts and events in the process of using language (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2005, p. 3). In general, comparison of text and the description of its properties are based on attempting to outline the various genre aspects that are represented in a multimodal form of communication. The second way in which multimodality is related to genre is seen in the manner in which particular aspects of genre change when they are considered within a multimodal context. In general, genre is said to have linear, staged properties that are function-oriented (Martin & Rose, 2008, p. 7). What this means is that in theory, genre has clear-cut structures that develop in stages. However, it is important to note that the linearity and multi-staged properties of genre are only applicable in theory. Once language is used in highly sophisticated methods to create the intended meaning during actual conversations, people have to break the rules associated with genres. Within a multimodal context, language is used in the form of texts, pictures and other elements that are included in a text to create the intended meaning. Within such a context, it becomes difficult for users of language to stick to the strict rules and procedures that define genres. Thus, the relationship between genre and multimodality is seen in the manner in which the strict rules that are used to define genre in theory lose their meaning when one has to use various forms of genres when communicating within a multimodal context. Another important aspect of applied linguistics to which multimodality has a close relationship is discourse. In general, discourse analysis refers to the manner in which language is used within particular contexts (O’Halloran, 2005, p. 54). Discourse reflects how individuals use language to convey particular meanings. Thus, discourse analysis entails studying language clauses and phrases to determine the intended meaning within a social context. Given that language is used in highly sophisticated forms to communicate meaning, it follows that the manner in which language is used is tied to the environment in which the people who are using it are. This implies that people attempt to use language to communicate their feelings towards the things that they talk about. Therefore, the use of language is not merely a plain expression of the observations of a distant bystander but rather a rich expression of a person’s feelings towards the content of what is being talked about. Under discourse analysis, language is said to play three major functions or metafunctions as follows: the ideational metafunction, the interpersonal metafunction and the textual metafunction (McCarthy, 2002, p. 6). The interpersonal metafunction of language relates to the manner in which people use language to interact with each other. The manner in which people communicate underscores the relationship between the people. Thus, people use language to create particular types of relations with the other people they communicate with. Further, people use language to maintain the desired relationships in the course of communication. The ideational metafunction of language relates to the creative use of language. When people use language, they rely on particular meanings and words to communicate their perceptions of particular forms of the world. Thus, language is said to provide people with the resources that they need to create complete conceptualisations about the universe and communicate those conceptualisations to the people they interact with. Finally, the textual metafunction of language relates to the manner in which people combine the two other metafunctions of language to create whole structures that are referred to as texts (Iedema, 2003, p. 33). Therefore, by combining conceptualisations and the manner in which they interact with one another, people rely on the textual metafunction of communication. The relationship between multimodality and discourse is complex. On the one hand, the relationship is seen in the way the use of language is shifting from the once-common monomodal form of communication to the current forms of communication that are characterised by the combination of words, sounds, images and other attributes into texts. This implies that currently, the textual metafucntion of language can be understood as a representation of actual text, sound, aura and other attributes into a single whole that is traditionally referred to as texts. Therefore, multimodality changes the overall manner in which language is seen in purely three metafunctions. By relying on different aspects of language, people communicate in sophisticated ways and rely less on the traditional single aspects of language as it is the case when one considers language use within the context of monomodality. Part 2 Context The language-related teaching-learning context that I am familiar with relates to my early years as a student at the university. During my first year, I took a particular language-based course at the university. The university in question was a large public institution. The total number of students at the time was about 6,000. My class for this particular course was relatively small. We were about 43 students in total. As it was expected of all the students, my role was to attend the lectures on the specified days. During the lecturers, the lecturer was supposed to take us through the content. He would use the white board to describe a few concepts. Therefore, the manner in which the lectures were conducted reflected the use of various semiotic resources to enhance the meaning-making process. The lecturer not only relied on what he was saying during the classes to make meaning, but also used the white board and the physical arrangement of the theatre to enhance the meaning-making process. Multimodality of space Classes for the particular course were conducted in a small lecture theatre at the university campus. The lecture theatre had been specifically allocated for the particular course for the entire semester. The lectures for the class used to be conducted every Friday in the afternoon for 2 hours and on Mondays in the morning for 1 hour. In total, we used to have 3 contact hours per week as part of the course. The lecture theatre was designed in the traditional manner. It was a small room, the size of a typical classroom that one would find in an ordinary school. The theatre had rows of wooden seats that were arranged in such a manner that all the students could have a clear view of the stage. The theatre room could accommodate about 50 students at a time. The stage was a small space right at the front of the room. The lecturer was expected to use the stage throughout the time of the lecture. There was a large white board on one of the walls of the theatre, directly above the stage. The lecturer was expected to jot on the board a few points during the lecture. Multimodality of space was witnessed during the lectures in various ways. In general, multimodality of space relates to the various ways in which the physical space is used to either facilitate or inhibit the meaning-making process within a particular social context (Kress et al., 2002, p. 39). This can take various forms, depending on the particular social activity under consideration. In our case, various attributes of the physical space influenced the meaning-making process. For example, the actual lecture theatre played an instrumental role in shaping the manner in which the teaching was carried out at the time. In theory, pedagogy, or the manner in which teaching is done, is a direct influence of the space in which the teaching is carried out (Kress et al., 2002, p. 41). What this means is that the teaching styles that teachers use are shaped by the actual appearance of the spaces in which the teaching occurs. Moreover, given that the design of the teaching spaces of learning institutions depends on the decisions and policies of various private and public parties, it follows that the teaching style that is used in any learning institution is shaped by the social and political forces at play. In this case, the design of the lecture theatre was a result of the decisions made by various organs. Also, the lecture theatre’s allocation for our particular classes was a decision that was reached by other decision makers and within the context of many other learning processes that were taking place at the learning institution at the time. Another important aspect of space that influenced the teaching-learning process during the lectures relates to the visual display of the lecture theatre. In theory, visual display is a critical aspect of space that influences the extent to which the mean-making process is successful (Jewitt, 2005, p. 139). The use of visual display is pegged on the need to create a learning environment that is attractive to the learners (Jewitt, 2005, p. 141). An attractive learning environment is one that stimulates the interests of the learners and facilitates the learning process. However, it is important to note that within the context of our university course, some visual display attributes cannot be regarded as critical. In fact, the lecture theatre did not have any other important attribute related to the visual display aspect of space apart from the prominent white board. Given that we could have been considered as adult learners at the time, our ability to learn could not be said to be wholly influenced by the visual display characteristics of the learning environment. The third aspect relates to the arrangement of the lecture theatre. The sitting arrangement was in such a manner that all the students could clearly see the lecturer on the stage and the white board. The traditional row-based sitting arrangement emphasised the teaching-learning style that was used at the time: lecturer-based. Based on the sitting arrangement and the design of the seats, it was difficult for the lecturer to move around the room and attempt to interact with the learners on a one-on-one basis. The lecturer was confined to the stage. Also, the arrangement of the lecture influenced the learning process in such a manner that the learners were expected to only listen to what the lecturer said without making a lot of contribution to the process. Therefore, based on the design and arrangement of the lecture theatre, emphasis of the teaching-learning process was on the lecturer. The learners were expected to be almost passive participants in the process. In conclusion, multimodality of space was seen in the social context of our lectures in various ways. The actual lecture theatre was designed to facilitate the type of teaching-learning that occurs in universities in general. The sitting arrangement was designed to support the teaching-learning method that was in use, which does not rely on close interaction between the learners and the teacher. The minimum visual display aspects of the lecture theatre also supported the teaching-learning methods that were used at the time. Therefore, all these aspects worked to facilitate the meaning-making process that was the lectures for the course at the time. References Bateman, J. A. (2008). Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systemic analysis of multimodal documents. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693-722. Iedema, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication, 2(1), 29-57. Jewitt, C. (2005). Technology, literacy and learning: A multimodal approach. London: Routledge. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. New York: Hodder Arnold. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Bourne, J., Franks, A., Hardcastle, J., Jones, K., & Reid, E. (2002). English in urban classes: A multimodal perspective on teaching and learning. Mason, OH: Routledge. Martin, J., R. & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox. McCarthy, M. (2002). Discourse analysis for language teachers. London: SAGE. O’Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More