Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:08:28.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - Visual and Multimodal Communication across Cultures

from Part IV - Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2022

By
Charles Forceville
Edited by
Istvan Kecskes
Istvan Kecskes
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Get access

Summary

Successful communication – whether relayed verbally, visually, or in any other mode or mode-combination – crucially depends on cooperation between sender and recipient. Relevance Theory assumes that, ceteris paribus, humans are naturally inclined to help each other and therefore attempt to optimize the chance that their fellow creatures understand them. Given the folk wisdom that “a picture tells more than a thousand words,” we may be forgiven for thinking that visual communication, when possible, is always preferable to its verbal variety. We should not underestimate, however, how much background knowledge is presupposed in communication via pictures or other visuals. A visual message may thus misfire because its sender misjudges the background knowledge and values of the envisaged audience. A further complicating factor is that visual (and all other) messages come with varying degrees of commitment to the meaning conveyed, this meaning ranging from being fully explicit, via being strongly or weakly suggested, to being unintentionally transmitted. Unsurprisingly, visual communication is even more challenging when it straddles different cultures. After presenting a bare-bones introduction to Relevance Theory, I discuss a number of exclusively or partially visual messages that involve, in one way or another, intercultural communication.

Keywords

visual communicationmultimodalitymultimodal knowledgevisual systemmeaning creation
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 527 - 551
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdel-Raheem, A. (2019). Pictorial Framing in Moral Politics: A Corpus-Based Experimental Study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Adami, E. (2017). Multimodality. In García, O., Flores, N., and Spotti, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 451–472.Google Scholar
Archer, A. and Breuer, E. (eds.) (2015). Multimodality in Writing: The State of the Art in Theory, Methodology and Pedagogy. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A. (2008). Multimodality and Genre: A Foundation for the Systematic Analysis of Multimodal Documents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A. (2014). Text and Image: A Critical Introduction to the Visual/Verbal Divide. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A. (2016). Methodological and theoretical issues in multimodality. In Klug, N.-M. and Stöckl, H., eds., Handbuch Sprache im Multimodalen Kontext. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 36–74.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A., Wildfeuer, J., and Hiippala, T. (2017). Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis. A Problem-Oriented Introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A., Wildfeuer, J., and Hiippala, T. (2020). A question of definitions: Foundations for multimodality: A response to Charles Forceville’s review. Visual Communication, 19(2), 317–320.Google Scholar
Bordwell, D. (1989). Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, B. (2013). Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohn, N. (2013). The Visual Language of Comics: Introduction to the Structure and Cognition of Sequential Images. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Cohn, N. (2020). Who Understands Comics? Questioning the Universality of Visual Language Comprehension. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
El Refaie, E. (2003). Understanding visual metaphors: The example of newspaper cartoons. Visual Communication, 2(1), 75–95.Google Scholar
El Refaie, E. (2009). Metaphor in political cartoons: Exploring audience responses. In Forceville, C. and Urios-Aparisi, E., eds., Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 173–196.Google Scholar
Elkins, J. (2003). Visual Studies: A Skeptical Introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Elleström, L. (ed.) (2010). Media Borders, Multimodality and Intermediality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, Y. (2002). The Language of Graphics: A Framework for the Analysis of Syntax and Meaning in Maps, Charts and Diagrams. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (1999). Educating the eye? Kress and Van Leeuwen’s Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (1996). Language and Literature, 8(2), 163–178.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2005). Visual representations of the Idealized Cognitive Model of anger in the Asterix album La Zizanie. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(1), 69–88.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2013). Creative visual duality in comics balloons. In Veale, T., Feyaerts, K., and Forceville, C., eds., Creativity and the Agile Mind: A Multi-Disciplinary Exploration of a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 253–273.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2017). Visual and multimodal metaphor in advertising: Cultural perspectives. Styles of Communication, 9(2), pp. 26–41.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2019). Reflections on the creative use of traffic signs’ “micro-language.” In Benedek, A. and Nyíri, K., eds., Image and Metaphor in the New Century (Perspectives on Visual Learning vol. 3). Budapest: Budapest University of Technology and Economics/Hungarian Academy of Sciences, pp. 103–113.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2020a). Visual and Multimodal Communication: Applying the Relevance Principle. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2020b). Book review of J. A. Bateman, J. Wildfeuer, and T. Hiippala, Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis. A Problem-Oriented Introduction (De Gruyter 2017). Journal of Visual Communication, 19(1), 157–160.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2021). Multimodality. In Wen, X. and Taylor, J. R., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 676–687.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. and Jeulink, M. (2011). “The flesh and blood of embodied understanding”: The source-path-goal schema in animation film. Pragmatics and Cognition, 19(1), 37–59.Google Scholar
Forceville, C., El Refaie, E., and Meesters, G. (2014). Stylistics and comics. In Burke, M., ed., Routledge Handbook of Stylistics. London: Routledge, pp. 485–499.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. and van de Laar, N. (2019). Metaphors portraying right-wing politician Geert Wilders in Dutch political cartoons. In Hidalgo-Tenorio, E., Ángel Benítez-Castro, M., and de Cesare, F., eds., Populist Discourse: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Politics. London: Routledge, pp. 292–307.Google Scholar
Gibbons, A. (2012). Multimodality, Cognition, and Experimental Literature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grau, O. and Veigl, T. (eds.) (2011). Imagery in the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 21–35.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Guan, Y. and Forceville, C. (2020). Making cross-cultural meaning in five Chinese promotional clips: Metonymies and metaphors. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(2), 123–149.Google Scholar
Hamann, A. (2018). Multimodal meaning-making in Classic Maya inscriptions. LaMiCuS, 2, 132–146.Google Scholar
Ildirar, S. and Schwan, S. (2011). Watching films for the first time. In Sachs-Hombach, K. and Totzke, R., eds., Bilder-Sehen-Denken: Zum Verhältnis von begrifflich-philosophischen und empirisch-psychologischen Ansätzen in der bildwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Cologne: Von Halem, pp. 192–203.Google Scholar
Jewitt, C. (2014). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., and O’ Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing Multimodality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kashanizadeh, Z. and Forceville, C. (2020). Visual and multimodal interaction of metaphor and metonymy: A study of Iranian and Dutch print advertisements. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 7(1), 78–110.Google Scholar
Klug, N.-M. and Stöck, H. (eds.) (2016). Handbuch Sprache im multimodalen Kontext [The Language in Multimodal Contexts Handbook]. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. (3rd ed. published in 2021.) London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (eds.) (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Discourse. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Machin, D. (ed.) (2014). Visual Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mavers, D. (2014). Image in the multimodal ensemble: Children’s drawing. In Jewitt, C., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 431–439.Google Scholar
Meili-Dworetzki, G. (1982). Spielarten des Menschenbildes: Ein Vergleich der Menschenzeichnungen japanischer und schweizerischer Kinder. Bern: Hans Huber.Google Scholar
Moya Guijarro, A. J. (2014). A Multimodal Analysis of Picture Books for Children: A Systematic Functional Approach. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Moya Guijarro, A. J. and Ventola, E. (eds.) (2022). A Multimodal Approach to Challenging Gender Stereotypes in Children’s Picture Books. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Munn, N. (2016). The Walbiri sand story. In Cohen, N., ed., The Visual Narrative Reader. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 231–251.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Nørgaard, N. (2009). The semiotics of typography in literary texts: A multimodal approach. Orbis Litterarum, 64(2), 141–160.Google Scholar
Pauwels, L. (2015). Reframing Visual Social Science: Towards a More Visual Sociology and Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, G. (2016). Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials, 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Royce, T. D. and Bowcher, W. L. (eds.) (2007). New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sachs-Hombach, K. (ed.) (2005). Bildwissenschaft: Zwischen Reflexion und Anwendung. Cologne: Von Halem.Google Scholar
Sachs-Hombach, K. (2006). Das Bild als kommunikatives Medium: Elemente einer allgemeinen Bildwissenschaft. Cologne: Halem.Google Scholar
Sachs-Hombach, K. and Totzke, R. (eds.) (2011). Bilder-Sehen-Denken: Zum Verhältnis von begrifflich-philosophischen und empirisch-psychologischen Ansätzen in der bildwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Cologne: Von Halem.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. and Wong Scollon, S. (2003). Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schilperoord, J. and Maes, A. (2009). Visual metaphoric conceptualization in editorial cartoons. In Forceville, C. and Urios-Aparisi, E., eds., Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 213–240.Google Scholar
Shinohara, K. and Matsunaka, Y. (2009). Pictorial metaphors of emotion in Japanese comics. In Forceville, C. and Urios-Aparisi, E., eds., Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 265–293.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stöckl, H. (2005). Typography: Body and dress of a text – a signing mode between language and image. Visual Communication, 4(2), 76–86.Google Scholar
Stöckl, H. (2014). Typography. In Norris, S. and Daniela Maier, C., eds., Interactions, Images and Texts: A Reader in Multimodality. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 281–294.Google Scholar
Tseronis, A. and Forceville, C. (eds.) (2017). Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tylor, E. (1871). Primitive Culture, Vol I. New York: J. P. Putnam’s Son.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Typographic meaning. Visual Communication, 4(2), 137–143.Google Scholar
Wildfeuer, J., Pflaeging, J., Bateman, J. A., Seizov, O., and Tseng, C.-I. ( eds.) (2019). Multimodality: Towards a New Discipline. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. P. (2016). Alternative representations of space: Arrernte narratives in sand. In Cohn, N., ed., The Visual Narrative Reader. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 253–281.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden MA: Blackwell, pp. 607–632.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (eds.) (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zhang, C. (2021). The Sino–US trade war in political cartoons: A synthesis of semiotic, cognitive, and cultural perspectives. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 469–497.Google Scholar
Zhang, C. and Forceville, C. (2020). Metaphor and metonymy in Chinese and American political cartoons (2018–2019) about the Sino-US Trade conflict. Pragmatics and Cognition, 27(2), 476–501.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×