Page 96 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 96
four critical essays on argumentation
multimodal meaning and multimodal argumentation require different
(expanded, at least) analytical framework, let us simply call it multimod-
al analysis. And in relation to that, I would like to 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 multiple
signs of multiple types’. (Enfield ibid.: 15)
Here is a visual example of a composite sign (with composite mean-
ing), Enfield is using himself:
96
multimodal meaning and multimodal argumentation require different
(expanded, at least) analytical framework, let us simply call it multimod-
al analysis. And in relation to that, I would like to 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 multiple
signs of multiple types’. (Enfield ibid.: 15)
Here is a visual example of a composite sign (with composite mean-
ing), Enfield is using himself:
96
