Working at cross-purposes: Multiple producers and textimage relations

Text and Talk

Volumn 31, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 579-600

  Marissa, K L E ^a   O'Halloran, Kay L ^a   Judd, Kevin ^b  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

climate change; intersemiosis; multimodal analysis; semiotic resource; textimage relations

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052385448     PISSN: 18607330     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/TEXT.2011.028     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Bateman, John. 2008. Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal documents. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
2. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
3. Bord, Richard J., Robert E. O'Connor & Ann Fisher. 2000. In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Understanding of Science 9. 205-218.
4. Boykoff, Maxwell T. & Jules M. Boykoff. 2004. Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change 14. 125-136.
5. Boykoff, Maxwell T. & Jules M. Boykoff. 2007. Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum 38. 1190-1204.
6. Butt, David G., Annabelle Lukin & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. Grammar-the frst covert operation of war. Discourse & Society 15(2/3). 267-290.
7. Carvalho, Anabela. 2007. Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientifc knowledge: Rereading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science 16(2). 223-243.
8. Crist, Eileen. 2007. Beyond the climate crisis: A critique of climate change discourse. Telos 141. 29-55.
9. Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and power. London & New York: Longman.
10. Foucault, Michel. 1972. Archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
11. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48. 782.
12. Gilbert, G. Nigel & Michael Mulkay 1984. Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists' discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
14. Gregory, Jane & Steve Miller. 1998. Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. New York: Plenum Trade.
15. Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
16. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1985. Language: Context and text. Geolong, Vic: Deakin University.
17. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.
18. Hansen, Anders & David Machin. 2008. Visually branding the environment: Climate change as a marketing opportunity. Discourse Studies 10(6). 777-794.
19. Jewitt, Carey (ed.). 2009. The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London: Routledge.
20. Judd, Kevin & Kay L. O'Halloran. 2009. Systemics 1.1.4. Software for systemic functional linguistic analysis. Singapore: NUS Press.
21. Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
22. Liu, Yu & Kay L. O'Halloran. 2009. Intersemiotic texture: Analyzing cohesive devices between language and images. Social Semiotics 19(4). 367-387.
23. Martin, James R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
24. McCright, Aaron & Riley Dunlap. 2000. Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement's counter-claims. Social Problems 47(4). 499-522.
25. Morris, Pam (ed.). 1994. The Bakhtin reader: Selected writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev and Voloshi-nov. London & New York: E Arnold.
26. Myers, Greg. 1985. Text as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biologists' articles. Social Studies of Science 15. 593-630.
27. Myers, Greg. 1990. Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientifc knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
28. Norris, Sigrid. 2004. Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. London: Routledge.
29. O'Halloran, Kay L. 2005. Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum.
30. O'Halloran, Kay L. 2007. Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA) approach to mathematics, grammar and literacy. In Ann McCabe, Mick O'Donnell & Rachel Whittaker (eds.), Advances in language and education, 77-102. London & New York: Continuum.
31. O'Halloran, Kay L. (ed.). 2004. Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic functional perspectives. London: Continuum.
32. Pearce, Fred. 2008a. Are climate scientists over-selling their models? New Scientist. http://www. newscientist.com/article/mg20026851.900-are-climate- scientists-overselling-their-models. html (accessed 30 March 2009).
33. Royce, Terry. 1998. Synergy on the page: Exploring inter-semiotic complementarity in page-based multimodal text. JASFL Occasional Papers 1(1). 25-49.
34. Royce, Terry. 2007. Inter-semiotic complementarity: A framework for multimodal discourse analysis. In Terry D. Royce & Wendy L. Bowcher (eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse, 63-109. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Shackley, Simon & Brian Wynne. 1996. Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology & Human Values 21(3). 275-302.
36. Smart, Graham. 2011. Argumentation across Web-based organizational discourses: The case of climate change. In C. N. Candlin & S. Sarangi (eds.), Handbook of communication in organisations and professions, 363-386. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
37. Weingart, Peter, Anita Engels & Petra Pansegrau. 2000. Risks of communication: Discourses on climate change in science, politics and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science 9. 261-283.
38. Zehr, Stephen C. 2000. Public representations of scientifc uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science 9. 85-103.