Sitios De Infección

Language has always been seen as the key component of communication; however communication is too complicated to rely on language autonomously (Iedema, 2003; Kress and van Leeuwen, 2006 and Jewitt, 2009). Considering the premise that a limited number of individuals accurately share the same schema, language norms, personality, cultural norms, etc. it is safe to argue that one cannot rely on language alone in order to achieve relatively satisfying outcomes in a communication process. In a communication process the initiator of the message has the responsibility of constructing and delivering the message in a manner that will be identifiable and recognisable by the receiver of the message in order to achieve the desired outcome. It is due to the above motivation that when we communicate daily, we incorporate other modes of communication to language to get the message across. According to Kress (2010) modes are semiotic resources used for making meaning.

Communication that incorporates different modes is said to be multimodal. “The term multimodality, as used here, is a technical one aiming to highlight that the meaning work we do at all times exploits various semiotics” (Iedema, 2003:11). Iedema’s take on the notion of multimodality is that the point of communicating is to make meaning; in order to make meaning people use language. However, he notes that language is not enough: modes such as facial expressions, gestures, postures, etc. are part of making meaning in the communication process.

Iedema further notes that multimodality does not only highlight the inadequacy of language as a single or prime component of the communication process and the significance of incorporating other modes in a communication process, it also highlights how language works well as a communication component when amalgamated with other modes. Gestures, voice tone and facial expressions can play a significant role in the communication process between individuals who have different languages and cultural backgrounds, i.e. they play significant roles in situations where sarcasm is involved. In situations such as the above,

23

language is not a prime mode as the communication in this regard relies entirely on the non-verbal modes.

Jewitt’s take on the notion of multimodality is that language is not the core component of communication, representation and interaction. “Multimodality approaches representation, communication and interaction as something more than language” (Jewitt, 2009: 1). Jewitt’s notion is closely related to Iedema’s - even though they do not deny language’s role in communication, interaction and representation, they state that language is equally as important as other modes in communication, representation and interaction. In some cases language plays a minor role in these three means of meaning making.

To emphasise, Jewitt (2009) further states that “the starting point for multimodality is to extend the social interpretation of language and its meanings to the whole range of representational and communicational modes or semiotics resources for making meaning that are employed in a culture-such as image, writing, gesture, gaze, speech, posture” (Jewitt, 2009: 1). This means that multimodality takes into consideration other modes and social conventions that those modes are being used in, i.e. different gestures have different meanings across cultures.

“Multimodality, it could be argued, strictly speaking refers to a field of application rather than a theory” (Jewitt, 2009: 2). The general perspective on the study of multimodality is that it is the study for analysis of multimodes incorporated in a communicational event and not the study of how these multimodes should be amalgamated in a communicational event. This means that instead of giving guidelines in terms of how to employ multimodes in a communicational event, multimodality as a field of study provides us a basis with regards to how to elicit meaning from these modes when incorporated.

Jewitt (2009) states that the study of multimodality has always been perceived as a study that attempts to marginalise language as a communicational mode. Thus Jewitt (2009) makes it clear that this is not the case in reality. Jewitt (2009) argues that Scollon and Scollon provide ways in which language becomes influenced by other communicational modes in a communication event and visa-versa. This means multimodality is a platform on which language can play hand in glove with other communicational modes in amalgamated fashion.

2.4.1. Are visual artefacts readable?

24

For a long period of time language has not only been considered the only form of communication, but the word grammar was specially used for a set of rules used to govern language use. It was until Kress and van Leeuwen questioned the generic view of what grammar is and what qualifies each system of expression as a grammar in their book Reading Images: the grammar of visual designs (2006) that the meaning of what grammar is, changed.

As stated in the book:

In this book, contrast, we will concentrate on ‘grammar’ and on ‘syntax’, on the way in which these elements are combined into meaningful wholes. Just as grammars of language describe how words combine in clauses, sentences and texts, so our visual grammar will describe the way which depicted elements - people, places and things - combine in visual ‘statements’ of greater or lesser complexity and extension (Kress and van Leeuwen, 2006:1).

Kress and van Leeuwen (2006: 1) argue that the elements they identified about visual grammar are elements of conventional grammar. They state that “grammar has been, and remains, ‘formal’. It has generally been studied in isolation from meaning”. Moreover, Kress and van Leeuwen (2006) state that even though linguists often deny it, they are merely describing what people do with language and some turn these descriptions into sets of rules.

In fact they insist that:

Grammar goes beyond formal rules of correctness. It is a means of representing patterns of experience…it enables human beings to build a mental picture of reality, to make sense of their experience of what goes on around them and inside them (Halliday, 1985: 101 in Kress and van Leeuwen, 2006: 2).

Amongst other ‘grammatical’ aspects, Kress and van Leeuwen (2006) identify as compulsory rules of reading visual texts, the following are relevant to this study.

2.4.2. Salience

Some elements of an image may appear to be more visible than others due to the following aspects: size, focus, colour, and distance within the image. According to Kress and van Leeuwen (2006), this is called salience. Elements of an image that are bigger than other are considered more salient because they are more noticeable. Elements that are presented in bolder, brighter and more concentrated shades of the same colour are more salient than elements that are presented in less bright, bold and concentrated shades because they are