Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Luento 24102011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Luento 24102011

480
views

Published on

Multimodaalinen diskurssintutkimus -kurssin ensimmäinen kokoontuminen

Multimodaalinen diskurssintutkimus -kurssin ensimmäinen kokoontuminen

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
480
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • “ei ole monomodaalista (yhdenmodaliteetin) diskurssia”
  • …all discourse is multimodal…-moniaviestintäkeinoja, muotojaym, jotkavälittävätmerkitystä
  • “ei ole monomodaalista (yhdenmodaliteetin) diskurssia”Näidentermienviittomat? Mitätarkoittaadiskurssi?kielikäytössä, (lausettalaajempiyksikkö), kielisosiaalisessakäytössä. Laajemmassamerkityksessäkonventionnalistuneetjaideologisetajattelu- jatoimintavat. (Esim. tutkimuksessavoidaankatsoamikrotasollahyvinkinyksityiskohtaisestiesimerkiksitäällätätävuorovaikutustilannetta, mitenkieltätäälläkäytetään, muttatämäheijastaalaajemminakateemisenkoulutuksendiskurssia, jokaheijastuutähänmikrotasoon).
  • Viestintäkeino, vuorovaikutuskeino, kommunikointikeino, modaliteetti, ‘ilmaisukeino’Viestintäkanava –väline, Huom: Sensory channels are not the same as semiotic modes!  I understand it so that I’m looking at different modes that mediate. The modes are never alone, but together, and that’s where the concept of multimodality comes here. I’m looking at modes that mediate action  Defining the concepts of mode and media.  From a multimodal perspective, image, action, and so forth are referred to as modes, as organized sets of semiotic reserouces for meaning making. (Jewitt, 2008. In Review of Research in Education. 2008: 246, Vol 32. pp.241 - 267) "When talking about multimodality, medium and mode have become woven together like two threads in the cloth. (---) to understand (their) relationship as one between technologies of representation (the modes of "multimodality") and technologies of dessemination (the media of multimediality)." Jewitt 2004:184, In Levine & Scollon. 184 - 195. Medium = how texts are diseeminated, such as printed book, CD-Rom, or computer application.Medium refers to production (K & Van leeuwen) and dissemination on the expression side. A medium can become a mode once the principles of semiosis begin to be conceived of in more abstract ways, when a grammar develops. A medium can be a tool, a material. It is closely associated with different sensory channels, materail qualities are grasped by a particular se on sensory organs (p. 67). For example, instruments, air, block of wood, ink, paint, cameras, computers. What is used? --> What materials invoked? --> What are the senses involved? --> Different meanings (attached to it)? (Kress & van Leeuwen 2001: 28) Mode = any organized, regular means of representation and communication, such as, still image, gesture, posture, speech, music, writing, or new configurations of the elements of these. Jewitt 2004:184, In Levine & Scollon. 184 - 195.Mode refers to design (Kress & van Leeuwen), the representation on the content side. Those are the semiotic resrouces. A mode can be realised in more than one medium. Examples: narrative, colour, gesture, taste.  Tästäseuraa: --"multimodality and multimediality are not quite the same thing." Radio (medium) is multimodal in its affordances, involves modes of speech, music, other sounds, but it is monomedial, since it can only be heard. Face to face interaction is multimodal and multimedial. Mode and medium are relatively independent. For example, a shop can be quite monomedial (based on visual) experience, but have mulitimodality.(Kress & van Leeuwen 2001: 28)  Multimodal theory of communication concentrates on : "1. the semiotic resources of communication, the modes and the media used, and 2. the communicative practices in which these reseources are used. These communicative practices are seen as multi-layered and include, at the very least, discursive practices, production practices and interpretive practices. Whe have stressed that each of these layers contributes to meaning."(Kress & van Leeuwen 2001: 111)In other words: Meaning is made in many differenw ways, always, in the many different modes and media which are co-present in a communicationa ensemble. (Kress & van Leeuwen 2001: 111)Radio (medium) is multimodal in its affordances, involves modes of speech, music, other sounds, but it is monomedial, since it can only be heard. Face to face interaction is multimodal and multimedial. Mode and medium are relatively independent. For example, a shop can be quite monomedial (based on visual) experience, but have mulitimodality.(Kress & van Leeuwen 2001: 28)
  • Radio (medium) is multimodal in its affordances, involves modes of speech, music, other sounds, but it is monomedial, since it can only be heard. Face to face interaction is multimodal and multimedial. Mode and medium are relatively independent. For example, a shop can be quite monomedial (based on visual) experience, but have mulitimodality.(Kress & van Leeuwen 2001: 28)
  • Mikä on tämän julisteen viesti?Kuka on tekijä?Kenelle tämä on tarkoitettu?Mitä keinoja viestin lähettäjä on käyttänyt saadakseen viestinsä perille?Lingvistiset elementit:1) suora viittaus ”you”2) väitelause (välittää tietoa, toteaa)3) verbi ”need” (leksikalisoitu pyyntö)’country’ – subjektilla on auktoriteettiVisuaaliset elementit:1) kohti osoittava sormi (vaatimus)2) katse katsojaan (vaatimus)3) ilme, tapa katsoa (auktoriteetti)4) preussilaiset viikset (auktoriteetti)
  • Erityisestitekstitovatosanahyvinkinmultimodaalisiamedioita – lukukäytänteisiinjalukemaanoppimiseenkuuluuvahvastimyösmuidenmoodienhuomioiminenjalukemisenoppiminen.Meihinvaikutetaanesim. mainoksissaerittäinvahvastinimenomaanmultimodaalisuudenkautta. Tekstisaattaa olla varsinminimaalisessamerkityksessä.Kaupassakäyntiennen – kaupassakäyntinyt
  • What is the materiality of semiotic resoucesused?What is the history -?What they been designed to do what they do now?Semiotic reserouces have been produced in the course of social/cultural/political histories…
  • Kasvokkaiseenvuorovaikutukseen,jostaerityisestiNorrisinjaKääntä & Haddingtonintekstioli.
  • communicativemodes (viestintäkeinot? …moodit, joilla viestimme?)vuorovaikutuksen keinotNäitä voi kutsua myös semioottiseksi resurssiksi
  • Semiotic resources (originates from Halliday): Grammar of language is not set of rules for producing correctsentences, but a “resource for making meaning.” (apply that to other modes) “actions and artifacts we use to communicate” (van Leeuwen 2005: 3)- multilayered and include discursive practices, production practices and interpretive practices. Meaning is made in many different ways, in many different modes and media which are co-present in communicational ensemble.Semiotic resources: "have been produced in the course of social/cultural/political histories"(Kress & van Leeuwen 2001: 112). Mitkäsemioottisetresurssitovatmeilläkäytössäperinteisesti? Mihinjokuresurssi on syntynyt? Missäsitäkäytetään? Mitäjokuyhteisö on mieltäko. resurssista? Mitenjotainresurssiaaletaansäännöstellä, arvioida, muokata…? "No semiotic reseource is by 'nature' either 'lexically' or grammatically' organised' ." (--) Once a mode has begun to become 'grammaticalised', it will acquire some other powerful and highly valuable facilities, such as the ability to produce meta-signs, to comment on representation in that same mode, and to produce theoretical statements. (e.g. visual irony) (Kress & van Leeuwen 2001: 113) Important to do this what Kress & van leeuwen 2001:4 are trying to do: "analysis of the specificities and common traits of semiotic modes which takes account their social, cultural and historical production, of when and how the modes of production are specialised or multi-skilled, hierarchical ro team-based, of when and how technologies are specialised or multi-purpose, and so on."  Semiotic resources:- A key term in social semiotics- Originates from the work of Halliday: Grammar of the language is not set of rules for producing correct sentences, not a code, but a 'resource for making meaning'. Extend that to other modes, "actions and artefacts we use to communicate", produced physiologically or by the means of technologies (pen, ink, paper: computer hardware & software) (van leeuwen :3)  Modes and modal resources are dynamic:People draw on available modal resources (in specific contexts) --> the resources come to display regularities --> The more they are used, the more fully and finely articulated its regularities and patterns become. The modes are constantly transformed by users, depending on what the community needs. (Jewitt, 2008 246- 247.. In Review of Research in Education. 2008, Vol 32. pp.241 - 267) _____ ABOUT SL :Sign languages "have a multimodal ensemble, drawing on the different material resources of movement - of the limbs of the upper torso, of facial expression, thruthmicteatures, etc. Clearly, signing is very closely related to gesture, as in its evedyday use in communities who use speech. Is one to be treated as a mode and the other not? In the case of gesture, we might think that it has certain limitations as a means for meaning-making, and that it is therefore rightly always assigned to a secondary role in relation to language. Yet when one community invests 'work' over extended time in that potential then it readily becomes a full representational and communicational resource, a mode. The difference lies, it seems obvious, not in limitations of the material resource, but in the relative degree of work invested over time by the community that uses gesture for purposes of communication. Where speech has been available as a means for representation, gesture has remained less developoed, where it was not, it has been articulated into a full means for representation. And 'gesture' can stand in here as a representative case for many other instances." ."(Kress & van Leeuwen 2001: 125-126)  ____  A word could be sign but that somehow sounds as pregiven (meaning and signifier), semiotic resources korostaa.  "In social life people constantly try fix and control the use of semiotic resources - and to justify the rules they make up - although more in some domains than in others" Compare: traffic signs - the usage of nail polish. (van leuuwen 2005 : 5).  I still have to write about the interaction when using semiotic resources and the situatedness of them. Raudaskoski's PhD has a lot on that. A practical example of semiotic resource: walking. Seen as semiotic behaviour or not? What is its semiotic potential? What kind of meanings does it afford? Other semiotic resources attached to it to create a meaning?  Modes together: "..no one mode stands alone in the process of making meaning; rather each plays a discrete role in the whole. This has significant implications in terms of epistemology and research methodology: Multimodal understanding of literacy require the investigation of the full multimodal ensemble used in any communicative event." (Jewitt, 2008: 247. In Review of Research in Education. 2008, Vol 32. pp.241 - 267)
  • ABOUT SL :Sign languages "have a multimodal ensemble, drawing on the different material resources of movement - of the limbs of the upper torso, of facial expression, thruthmicteatures, etc. Clearly, signing is very closely related to gesture, as in its evedyday use in communities who use speech. Is one to be treated as a mode and the other not? In the case of gesture, we might think that it has certain limitations as a means for meaning-making, and that it is therefore rightly always assigned to a secondary role in relation to language. Yet when one community invests 'work' over extended time in that potential then it readily becomes a full representational and communicational resource, a mode. The difference lies, it seems obvious, not in limitations of the material resource, but in the relative degree of work invested over time by the community that uses gesture for purposes of communication. Where speech has been available as a means for representation, gesture has remained less developoed, where it was not, it has been articulated into a full means for representation. And 'gesture' can stand in here as a representative case for many other instances." ."(Kress & van Leeuwen 2001: 125-126)
  • According to Jones, in what way do the new technologies make us rethink the concept of context? Think about your own presence in virtual environments: What thoughts can you agree with Jones? Norris gave to examples of making a traditional DA into more holistic analysis. How would you consider the topic from the view of SL research?Kääntä & Haddington presented several fields of study: What were they?-> Have SLs been studied from those perspectives? How would you apply those approaches to SL research?Which aspect/topic that were written about in the articles interests you the most at the moment?
  • The discussion on multimodality continues on the discussion forum.We will collect data to our Optima-folders by 2810.Next time: data session and more reading.Keräätteaineistoa, jossa on käytettyerilaisiasemioottisiaresursseja, erivälittäjäkeinoja, viestintäkanavia… Voi olla verkossa, voi olla kasvokkainen vv-tilanne (jollointarvitseevideotallenteen), voi olla multimodaalinentekstijne.
  • Padden, C. 1996.  Early bilingual lives of deaf children. In Parasnis, I., (ed.) Cultural and Language Diversity: Reflections on the Deaf Experience. 99-116.Padden, C.A. & Gunsauls, D.C. 2003. How the Alphabet Came to Be Used in a Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, vol 4, nro 1, 10—33.Patrie, C. J. & Johnson, R.E. 2011. Fingerspelled word recognition through rapid serial visual presentation. San Diego: DawnSignPress.Bagga-Gupta, S. 2004. Visually oriented language use: Discursive and technological resources in Swedish Deaf pedagogical arenas. In Van Herreweghe, M. & Vermeerbergen, M. (eds.) To the lexicon and beyond. Sociolinguistics in European deaf communities. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. 171 – 207.Goodwin, C. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1489 – 1522.Blommaert, J. 2008. Grassroots Literacy: Writing, Identity and Voice in Central Africa. London: Routledge.Brueggemann, B. J. (ed.) 2004. Literacy and Deaf People. Cultural and Contextual Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20, 249-268. Preprint: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/emoticons.pdfGee, J.P. 2008.Learning and Games. In Salen, K. (ed.) The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. 21 – 40. Gee, J.P. 2003. What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Hammersley, M & Atkinson, P. 1995. Ethnography.New York: Routledge.Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet. http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2007/761 Accessed 10.11.2010. Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In: D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. Hamilton (Eds.), TheHandbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 614). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/cmd.pdfs.614Jones, R. H. &Norris, S. 2005. Discourse as action/discourse in action. In Norris, S. & Jones, R. H. Discourse in Action: Introducing Mediated Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. 3 – 14.Jordan, B. and Henderson, A. 1994. 'Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice', The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 4: 39 – 101.Journal of Pragmatics 41. 2009. 1879 – 1886. Kramsch, C. (ed.) 2002. Language acquisition and language socialization. Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.Kress, G. 2000. Multimodality. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (eds.) Multiliteracies : literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge. 182 – 202.Kress, G. 2003. Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. 2001. Multimodal Discourse. The modes and media of contemporary communication.London: Arnold.Leppänen, S., Nikula, T. & Kääntä, L. 2008. Kolmas kotimainen. Lähikuvia englannin käytöstä Suomessa.Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Levine, P. & Scollon, R. (eds.) 2004. Discourse & technology. Multimodal discourse analysis. Washington, D.C. : Georgetown university press.Norris, S. 2002. The Implication of Visual Research for Discourse Analysis: Transcription beyond Language. Visual Communication 1:1, 97 – 121.Norris, S. 2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. London: Routledge.Norris, S. & Jones, R. H.2005. Discourse in Action: Introducing Mediated Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Ochs, E. 2002. Becoming a speaker of culture. In Kramsch, C. (ed.). Language Acquisition and language socialization. Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum. 99 – 120. Scollon, R. 2001. Mediated Discourse. The Nexus of Practice. London: Routledge.Scollon, R. & Levine, P. 2004. Multimodal Discourse Analysis as the Confluence of Discourse and Technology. In Levine, P. & Scollon, R. (eds.) Discourse and technology: multimodal discourse analysis. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 1 – 6.Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. 2004. Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. London: Routledge.Tapio, E. The English language in the everyday life of Finnish Sign Language users – a multimodal perspective into interaction. PhD Thesis. In progress.Van Lier, L. 2004. The ecology and semiotics of language learning. A sociocultural perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Van Lier, L. 2000. From input to affordance: social-interactive olearning from an ecological perspective. In Lantolf, J.P. (ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: OUP.Wilcox, S. 2004. Struggling for a Voice: An Interactionist View of Language and Literacy in Deaf Education. In Brueggemann, B. J. (ed.) Literacy and Deaf People. Cultural and Contextual Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. 157 – 191      
  • Transcript

    • 1. SVKA180Multimodaalinendiskurssintutkimus Elina Tapio 24/10/2011
    • 2. Tänään• Johdantoaiheeseen• Kurssinrakenne• Kolmenartikkelinkäsittelypienryhmissä
    • 3. Multimodal view –something old, something new?” (--) alldiscourse is multimodal.” (Scollon& Levine 2004)
    • 4. Monomodaalisuus?Oletko koskaan nähnyt monomodaalista tekstiä • lehdissä • kirjoissa • mainoksissa • opetusmateriaalissa?Multimodaalinen teksti ei tarkoita ainoastaan tekstiä, jossa on tekstin lisäksi kuvia.
    • 5. Multimodal view –something old, something new?• ” (--) alldiscourse is multimodal.” (Scollon& Levine 2004) DISKURSSI/DIS COURSE? MULTI-WHAT? MULTI-MIKÄ?
    • 6. Multi-mikä?
    • 7. MODE and MEDIUMMode… any organized, regular means of representation and communication, suchas, still image, gesture, posture, speech, music, writing, or new configurationsof the elements of these (Jewitt 2004:184, In Levine &Scollon. 184 – 195).… refers to), the representation on the content side. Those are the semioticresources. A mode can be realised in more than one medium. Examples:narrative, colour, gesture (Kress & van Leeuwen).Medium… how texts are disseminated, such as printed book, CD-Rom, or computerapplication.…refers to production (Kress & van Leeuwen 2001) and dissemination on theexpression side.…can be a tool, a material. It is closely associated with different sensorychannels (Kress & van Leeuwen 2001: 67).
    • 8. KitchenerRecruitmentPoster (1914) Cf. Van Leeuwen (2004, 7-8)
    • 9. Something new• Tekstin vallasta kuvan aikakauteen: “... a linguistic theory cannot provide a full account of what literacy does or is; language alone cannot give us access to the meaning of the multimodally constituted message; language and literacy now have to be seen as partial bearers of meaning only.”(Kress 2003: Literacy in the New Media Age)• Pohdi omaa arkeasi: Miten merkitys rakentuu esim. peleissä, Messengerissä/Skypessä, verkkolehdissä?
    • 10. Multimodaalisuusvuorovaikutuksessa• “...gesture, gaze etc. can play a superordinate or an equal role to the mode of language in interaction, and therefore, these modes are not merely embellishments to language.” (Norris 2004)
    • 11. Communicative modes (Norris 2004)• puhuttu kieli • spoken language• tilankäyttö • proxemics• asento • posture• ilme • expression• pään liike • head movement• katse • gaze• musiikki (kehollinen • music (embodied or tai ei-kehollinen) disembodied• teksti (kehollinen tai • print (embodied or ei-kehollinen) disembodied• asettelu, layout • layout Mitä puuttuu? What’s missing?
    • 12. SemioottisetresurssitMultimodal theory of communication concentrates on:1. the semiotic resources – the modes and the media used2. the communicative practices in which these resources are used (Kress & van Leeuwen 2001:111) Eilistasääntöjävaanresurssejamerkitystenluomiseenjatul kitsemiseen.“…actions and artefactswe use to communicate…” (van Leeuwen 2005: 3)
    • 13. SemioottisetresurssitEsimerkkejäpohdittavaksi:• kävely• kynsilakka• eleet
    • 14. Kurssinrakenne 1/2OSA 1• Johdanto aiheeseen & lukupiirityöskentely (24.10)• Verkossa: Keskustelu jatkuu + ainestonkeruuOSA 2• Datasessio (31.10.)• Verkossa: Mediapäiväkirja + lisää lukemistaOSA 3• Mediapäiväkirjojen esittely ja projektisuunnitelmat (7.11.)• Miniprojektityöskentely, 3 viikkoa
    • 15. Kurssinrakenne 2/2 OSA 4 • Työpaja 28.11.: Miniprojektien esittely • Verkossa: Miniprojektien kommentointi OSA 5 • Tentti 8.12. • Verkossa: Palaute kurssistaKOTISIVU / HOMEPAGE
    • 16. STUDYING THEORIES M U LT I M O DA L I TANALYSING, ANA YLYSING, ANALYSIN “DOING”G
    • 17. Kolmenartikkelinpurku 1/21. ryhmä: Kääntä&Haddingtonalku (Multimodaalinen vv tutkimuskohteenameilläjamuualla –saakka)2. ryhmä: Kääntä&Haddingtonloppu3. ryhmä: Jonesinartikkeli4. ryhmä: Norrisinartikkeli Etsikääyhdessätekstinnepääpointit
    • 18. Kolmenartikkelinpurku 2/2Muodostakaa 1-2-3-4 -ryhmiäjakeskustelkaa:• Millä tavalla uudet teknologiat Jonesin mukaan pistävät meidät miettimään suhtautumistamme kontekstiin?• Pohtikaa omaa ’läsnäoloanne’ virtuaalisissa ympäristöissä: Mitkä Jonesin huomiot voitte itse allekirjoittaa?• Norris antaa kaksi esimerkkiä perinteisen diskurssianalyysin laajentamisesta holistisemmaksi analyysiksi. Miten pohtisit aihetta viittomakielen tutkimuksen näkökulmasta?• Kääntä&Haddington esittelivät useita eri tutkimusalueita:Mitä ne olivatkaan? Onko viittomakieliä tutkittu näistä näkökulmista? Miten itse soveltaisitte ko. näkökulmia viittomakielten tutkimukseen?• Mikä artikkeleissa esitelty aihe kiinnostaa tällä hetkellä eniten?
    • 19. SEURAAVA ASKEL…• Keskustelu multimodaalisuudesta jatkuu keskustelufoorumilla• Keräämme aineistoa Optima-kansioihin 28.10. mennessä• Ensi kerralla: datasessio ja lisää lukemista
    • 20. Some sourcesBagga-Gupta, S. 2004. Visually oriented language use: Discursive and technological resources in Swedish Deafpedagogical arenas. In Van Herreweghe, M. &Vermeerbergen, M. (eds.) To the lexicon and beyond. Sociolinguistics inEuropean deaf communities. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. 171 – 207.Gee, J.P. 2008.Learning and Games. In Salen, K. (ed.) The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning.The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge MA: The MITPress. 21 – 40.Goodwin, C. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1489 – 1522.Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internethttp://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2007/761 Accessed 10.11.2010.Jewitt, C. 2008. Multimodaldiscoursesacroos the curriculum. In Martin-Jones, M. et al. (eds.) Encyclopedia of language and education, 2ndedition, Volume 3, Discourse and Education, 357 –367.Jordan, B. and Henderson, A. 1994. Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice, The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 4: 39 – 101.Kress, G. 2000. Multimodality. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (eds.) Multiliteracies : literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge. 182 – 202.Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. 2001. Multimodal Discourse. The modes and media of contemporary communication.London: Arnold.Levine, P. &Scollon, R. (eds.) 2004. Discourse & technology. Multimodal discourse analysis. Washington, D.C. :Georgetown university press.Norris, S. 2002. The Implication of Visual Research for Discourse Analysis: Transcription beyond Language. Visual Communication 1:1, 97 – 121.Norris, S. 2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. London: Routledge.Norris, S. & Jones, R. H.2005. Discourse in Action: Introducing Mediated Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.

    ×