Abstract
The paper begins with a survey of the state of the art in multimodal research, an international trend in applied semiotics, linguistics, and media studies, and goes on to compare its approach to verbal and nonverbal signs to Charles S. Peirce’s approach to signs and their classification. The author introduces the concept of transmodality to characterize the way in which Peirce’s classification of signs reflects the modes of multimodality research and argues that Peirce’s classification of the signs takes modes and modalities in two different respects into consideration, (1) from the perspective of the sign and (2) from the one of its interpretant. While current research in multimodality has its focus on the (external) sign in a communicative process, Peirce considers additionally the multimodality of the interpretants, i.e., the mental icons and indexical scenarios evoked in the interpreters’ minds. The paper illustrates and comments on the Peircean method of studying the multi and transmodality of signs in an analysis of Peirce’s close reading of Luke 19:30 in MS 599, Reason’s Rules, of c. 1902. As a sign, this text is “monomodal” insofar as it consists of printed words only. The study shows in which respects the interpretants of this text evince trans and multimodality.
References
Amorós-Poveda, Lucía. 2013. Multimedia. In Marcel Danesi (ed.), Encyclopedia of media and communication, 473–476. Toronto: Toronto University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Böck, Margit. 2013. Multimodality and social semiosis communication, meaning-making, and learning in the work of Gunther Kress. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9780203761090Search in Google Scholar
Fricke, Ellen. 2012. Grammatik multimodal: Wie Wörter und Gesten zusammenwirken. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110218893Search in Google Scholar
Hookway, Christopher. 2002. … a sort of composite photograph: Pragmatism, ideas, and schematism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 38(1/2). 29–46.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588381.003.0008Search in Google Scholar
Iedema, Rick. 2003. Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication 2(1). 29–57.10.1177/1470357203002001751Search in Google Scholar
Jewitt, Carey. (ed.). 2009. The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Jewitt, Carey. 2012. Multimodality. MODE: Glossary of multimodal terms. http://multimodalityglossary.wordpress.com/ (accessed 1 March 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Klug, Nina-Maria & Hartmut Stöckl. (eds.). 2016. Sprache im multimodalen Kontext. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110296099Search in Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther. 2010. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York, NY: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Lutkewitte, Claire. (ed.). 2013. Multimodal composition: A critical sourcebook. Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s.Search in Google Scholar
Machin, David. 2010. Multimodality. In Paul Cobley (ed.), Routledge companion to semiotics, 271–272. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Mavers, Diane & Will Gibson. 2012. Mode. MODE: Glossary of multimodal terms. http://multimodalityglossary.wordpress.com/ (accessed 1 March 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Norris, Sigrid. 2004. Analyzing multimodal interaction. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203379493Search in Google Scholar
Nöth, Winfried. 2013. Human communication from the semiotic perspective. In F. Ibekwe-SanJuan & T. M. Dousa (eds.), Theories of information, communication, and knowledge: A multidisciplinary approach, 97–119. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-6973-1_5Search in Google Scholar
Nöth, Winfried. 2014. The life of symbols and other legisigns: More than a mere metaphor? In V. Romanini & E. Fernández (eds.), Peirce and biosemiotics: A guess at the riddle of life, 171–182. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-7732-3_9Search in Google Scholar
Nöth, Winfried. 2015. Three paradigms of iconicity research in language and literature. In Masako K. Hiraga, William J. Herlofsky, Kazuko Shinohara & Kimi Akita (eds.), East meets West: Iconicity in language and literature, 13–43. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/ill.14.01notSearch in Google Scholar
Nöth, Winfried & Lucia Santaella. 2011. Meanings and the vagueness of their embodiments. In T. Thellefsen, B. Sørensen & P. Cobley (eds.), From first to third via cybersemiotics: A festschrift honoring professor Søren Brier on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 247–282. Copenhagen: SL forlagene.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, vol. 8. C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. C. 1902. Reason’s rules (MS 599, pp. 4–45 and 8 pages of fragments). The Charles S. Peirce papers. Miguel Ángel Fernández (ed.). http://www.unav.es/gep/ReasonRules599.html (accessed March 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Purchase, Helen C. 1999. A semiotic definition of multimedia communication. Semiotica 123. 247–259.10.1515/semi.1999.123.3-4.247Search in Google Scholar
Santaella, Lucia. 2000. A teoria geral dos signos. São Paulo: Pioneira.Search in Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, Frederik. 2012. How do pictures act? Two semiotic aspects of picture activity. In Ulrike Feist & Markus Rathe (eds.), Et in imagine ego: Facetten von Bildakt und Verkörperung, 19–26. Berlin: Akademie Verlag/Walter de Gruyter.10.1524/9783050094175.19Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
