Page 141 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 141
summary
framework, let us simply call it multimodal analysis. And in relation to
that, I emphasize a few points.
In cases where just ‘seeing’ is not enough, and we have to consult ver-
bal (or other) sources, and incorporate other types of signs, like gestures,
gazes ..., we should be talking of enchronic analysis (Enfield 2009). What is
enchronic analysis?
Enchronic analysis is concerned with relations between data from
neighbouring moments, adjacent units of behaviour in locally co-
herent communicative sequences. (Enfield 2009: 10)
Enchronic analysis is therefore looking at sequences of social interac-
tion in which the moves that constitute social actions occur as responses to
other such moves, and in turn these give rise to further moves. The Detroit
River fruit is exactly a case in point: from observation of the photos of the
fruit taken on the river, we have to move to the observation of the photos
in encyclopaedias. And to get more complete and accurate information, we
have to switch from photos to text, and incorporate the textual information
as well. And to fine-tune our findings (understanding), we have to switch
to yet other photos (if necessary), and from them to yet another text(s) (if
necessary), and finally compare all these again with the initial photo (of the
fruit taken on the river).
If, when consulting encyclopaedias, we don’t just check the photos, but
the text as well, and then go and (re)check other available texts and pho-
tos, and compare them with the initial photo(s), the final result we arrive at
should be described as composite meaning, resulting in composite utteranc-
es, conceptualized as: ‘[…] a communicative move that incorporates multi
ple signs of multiple types’. (Enfield ibid.: 15)
4
The aim of the fourth chapter, Perception, Inference, and Understanding in
Visual Argumentation, is to upgrade the theoretical (conclusions) from the
previous chapter, and support them with empirical research and data. For
the lack of funds, I opted for an experimental survey study, involving a pi-
lot questionnaire.
This pilot questionnaire, titled A Short Questionnaire on Understanding
the Visuals (Drawings, Pictures, Photographs ...) comprised three well-
known visuals from Leo Groarke’s work on VA, namely:
141
framework, let us simply call it multimodal analysis. And in relation to
that, I emphasize a few points.
In cases where just ‘seeing’ is not enough, and we have to consult ver-
bal (or other) sources, and incorporate other types of signs, like gestures,
gazes ..., we should be talking of enchronic analysis (Enfield 2009). What is
enchronic analysis?
Enchronic analysis is concerned with relations between data from
neighbouring moments, adjacent units of behaviour in locally co-
herent communicative sequences. (Enfield 2009: 10)
Enchronic analysis is therefore looking at sequences of social interac-
tion in which the moves that constitute social actions occur as responses to
other such moves, and in turn these give rise to further moves. The Detroit
River fruit is exactly a case in point: from observation of the photos of the
fruit taken on the river, we have to move to the observation of the photos
in encyclopaedias. And to get more complete and accurate information, we
have to switch from photos to text, and incorporate the textual information
as well. And to fine-tune our findings (understanding), we have to switch
to yet other photos (if necessary), and from them to yet another text(s) (if
necessary), and finally compare all these again with the initial photo (of the
fruit taken on the river).
If, when consulting encyclopaedias, we don’t just check the photos, but
the text as well, and then go and (re)check other available texts and pho-
tos, and compare them with the initial photo(s), the final result we arrive at
should be described as composite meaning, resulting in composite utteranc-
es, conceptualized as: ‘[…] a communicative move that incorporates multi
ple signs of multiple types’. (Enfield ibid.: 15)
4
The aim of the fourth chapter, Perception, Inference, and Understanding in
Visual Argumentation, is to upgrade the theoretical (conclusions) from the
previous chapter, and support them with empirical research and data. For
the lack of funds, I opted for an experimental survey study, involving a pi-
lot questionnaire.
This pilot questionnaire, titled A Short Questionnaire on Understanding
the Visuals (Drawings, Pictures, Photographs ...) comprised three well-
known visuals from Leo Groarke’s work on VA, namely:
141
