This document discusses the grammar of visual design according to Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen. It notes that visual structures point to particular interpretations of experience and forms of social interaction. Meanings belong more to culture than specific modes of communication. The visual grammar described applies broadly to contemporary Western cultures, shaped by global mass media. Signs are motivated and built by sign makers within social and historical contexts, rather than being pre-existing or arbitrary.

1. READING IMAGES: THE
GRAMMAR OF VISUAL DESIGN
(GUNTHER KRESS AND THEO
VAN LEEUWEN)
por Erika Soares

2. INTRODUCTION: THE GRAMMAR OF
VISUAL DESIGN
•FOCUS ON GRAMMAR AND SYNTAX
(FORMAL)
•NOT MUCH ATTENTION HAS BEEN PAID TO
THE MEANINGS OF REGULARITIES IN THE
WAY IMAGE ELEMENTS ARE USED
•VISUAL STRUCTURES POINT TO
PARTICULAR INTERPRETATIONS OF
EXPERIENCE AND FORMS OF SOCIAL
INTERACTION

3. •MEANINGS BELONG TO CULTURE
RATHER THAN TO SPECIFIC SEMIOTIC
MODES
•EXPRESSING SOMETHING VERBALLY OR
VISUALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE
•VISUAL COMMUNICATION: MARGINALIZED
IF COMPARED TO WRITING

4. •VISUAL GRAMMAR: GENERAL GRAMMAR
OF CONTEMPORARY VISUAL DESIGN IN
WESTERN CULTURES
•VISUAL LANGUAGE: CULTURALLY
ORIENTED
•WESTERN DESIGN – CULTURAL
CONNECTION AND INTERCHANGE +
GLOBAL POWER OF THE WESTERN MASS
MEDIA AND CULTURE INDUSTRIES AND
THEIR TECHNOLOGIES

5. •UNITY OF LANGUAGES = THEORY + SOCIAL
AND CULTURAL HISTORIES
.VISUAL COMMUNICATION – HAS DEVELOPED
MORE FREELY THAN LANGUAGE
.DOMINANT VISUAL LANGUAGE: CONTROLLED
BY GLOBAL EMPIRES OF THE MASS MEDIA

6. •DEVELOPMENT OF SEMIOTICS: THREE
SCHOOLS
PRAGUE SCHOOL (30s and 40s):
RUSSIAN FORMALISTS
PARIS SCHOOL (60s and 70s):
SAUSSURE – SEMIOLOGY
HALLIDAY, HODGE AND KRESS (70s and
80s)

7. •SIGN: KEY NOTION IN SEMIOTICS
•FORMS: HOW ARE THEY USED TO
REALISE MEANING IN THE MAKING OF
SIGNS?
•SIGN FOR KRESS AND VAN LEEWUEN ≠
SIGN IN SEMIOLOGY
•REPRESENTATION: FOCUSED BY THE
SPECIFIC CONTEXT IN WHICH THE SIGN
MAKER PRODUCES THE SIGN
(CRITERIAL ASPECTS ONLY)

8. •SIGN MAKING = ORIENTED BY PERSONAL
CHOICE?
•SIGN: BUILT BY SIGN MAKER (MOTIVATED),
NOT PRE-EXISTENT OR ARBITRARY
(SOCIAL SEMIOTICS)
•FORM AND MEANING ARE INDEPENDENT
FROM EACH OTHER UNTIL THEY ARE
BROUGHT TOGETHER BY SIGN-MAKER

9. •SEMIOLOGY: MOTIVATION IS DEFINED IN
TERMS OF AN INTRINSIC RELATION
BETWEEN THE SIGNIFIER AND THE
SIGNIFIED
•PEIRCE: ICON, INDEX AND SYMBOL –
ARBITRARY RATHER THAN MOTIVATED

10. SEMIOLOGY:
•LANGUE: ABSTRACT POTENTIAL OF A
LANGUAGE SYSTEM (AVAILABLE
FORMS COUPLED WITH AVAILABLE
MEANINGS)
•PAROLE: PARTICULAR REALIZATION
OF THE POTENTIAL OF LANGUE
(MATERIALIZATION OF THE WORD?)

11. •SEMIOTIC POTENTIAL = ?
•SIGN-MAKERS: MAKE THEIR OWN
REPRESENTATIONAL RESOURCES
•CONVENTIONS: PLACE PRESSURE OF
CONSTANT LIMITATIONS OF CONFORMITY
ON SIGN-MAKING
•COMMUNICATION: MAKING MESSAGES
UNDERSTANDABLE
•REPRESENTATION: EXPRESSION OF
WHAT THE SIGN-MAKER HAS IN MIND

12. APPLICATION
•CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: HOW
IS LANGUAGE USED TO CONVEY POWER
AND STATUS IN CONTEMPORARY
SOCIAL INTERACTION?
•READING BETWEEN THE LINES = SENSE
OF IDEOLOGICAL POSITION