“And this is the view from outside my window”: On text and image interplay in university website blogs

Open access


The paper focuses on the institutional website as a complex genre with a relatively discontinuous inner structure, which is, however, coherent and cohesive, and unified by a common communication goal(s). The website is viewed as a discourse colony consisting of independent but related components realized in an array of subgenres, some of which are typical of the academic/institutional environment while others come from different discourse domains and are employed as embedded genres. The paper focuses on the blog as an embedded genre, its forms and functions within university websites, and particularly on its potentially multimodal character, i.e. the interplay of the verbal content of the blog and the non-verbal elements, esp. photographs, which co-create the producer’s message to the addressee. Drawing upon the recently developed field of multimodal discourse analysis within Hallidayan Systemic Functional Linguistics, particularly Martinec and Salway’s model, the paper explores the level to which the modes are integrated and the ways they contribute to meaningmaking in the genre.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • BARTHES R. 1997a [1961]. The photographic message. In: R. Barthes ed. Image-music-text. London: Fontana pp. 15-31.

  • BARTHES R. 1997b [1964]. Rhetoric of the image. In R. Barthes ed. Image-music-text. London: Fontana pp. 32-51.

  • BATEMAN J. 2011. The decomposability of semiotic modes. In: K. L. O’Halloran and B. A. Smith eds. Multimodal studies. Exploring issues and domains. London: Routledge pp. 17-38.

  • BATEMAN J. 2014. Text and image: A critical introduction to the visual/verbal divide. London: Routledge.

  • BATEMAN J. and WILDFEUER J. 2014. A multimodal discourse theory of visual narrative.

  • Journal of Pragmatics vol. 74 pp. 180-208.

  • BAZERMAN C. and PRIOR P. eds. 2004. What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • HALLIDAY M. A. K. and HASAN R. 2013 [1976] Cohesion in English. London: Routledge.

  • HALLIDAY M. A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

  • HALLIDAY M. A. K. and MATTHIESSEN C. M. I. M. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Education Publishers.

  • HERRING S. C. et al. 2005. Weblogs as a bridging genre. Information Technology & People vol. 18 no. 2 pp. 142-171.

  • HOEY M. 1986. The discourse colony: A preliminary study of a neglected discourse type. In: M. Coulthard ed. Talking about text. Studies presented to David Brazil on his retirement. Birmingham: Birmingham Instant Print Ltd. pp. 1-26.

  • HOEY M. 2001. Textual interaction. An introduction to written discourse analysis. London and New York: Routledge.

  • IEDEMA R. et al. 1994. Media literacy. Sydney: Disadvantaged Schools Programme NSW Department of School Education.

  • JAKOBSON R. 1971. Selected writings II. Word and language. The Hague: Mouton & Co.

  • KRESS G. 2009. What is mode? In: C. Jewitt ed. The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. Abingdon: Routledge pp. 54-68.

  • KRESS G. 2010. Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Abingdon: Routledge.

  • KRESS G. and VAN LEEUWEN T. 2006 [1996]. Reading images. The grammar of visual design. Abingdon: Routledge.

  • LEMKE J. 2012. Multimedia and discourse analysis. In: P. J. Gee and M. Handford eds. The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. London: Routledge pp. 79-89.

  • MARTINEC R. and SALWAY A. 2005. A system for image-text relations in new (and old) media. Visual Communication vol. 4 no. 3 pp. 337-371. [Accessed 20 April 2016]. Available at: http://vcj.sagepub.com/content/4/3/337

  • O’HALLORAN K. L. ed. 2004. Multimodal discourse analysis. London and New York: Continuum.

  • O’HALLORAN K. L. 2008. Systemic functional-multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery. Visual Communication vol. 7 no. 4 pp. 443-475.

  • O’HALLORAN K. L. 2012. Halliday and multimodal semiotics. SemiotiX new series: A global

  • information bulletin. Semiotix XN-7 2012). [Accessed 15 August 2016]. Available at: http://www.semioticon.com/semiotix/2012/03/halliday-and-multimodal-semiotics/

  • SCHMID H. J. 1998. Constant and ephemeral hypostatization: thing problem and other shell nouns. In: B. Caron ed. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists (Paris July 22-25 1997) CD-ROM. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [Accessed 10 February 2017]. Available at: http://www.anglistik.unimuenchen.de/personen/professoren/schmid/schmid_publ/hypostatization.pdf

  • SCHMID H. J. 2000. English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. From corpus to cognition Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • TÁRNYIKOVÁ J. 2008. Role strukturních stereotypů v textu. In: C. Hopkinson R. Tomášková and S. Wilamová eds. Autorský záměr a jeho cesta k adresátovi. Komunikační a textové strategie v masmediálním komerčním a akademickém diskursu. Ends and means in language: Communication and textual strategies in mass media commercial and academic discourse. Ostrava: Filozofická fakulta Ostravské univerzity v Ostravě pp. 64-67.

  • TOMÁŠKOVÁ R. 2012. Structural and cognitive stereotyping in lifestyle magazines for women. In: O. Dontcheva-Navratilova and R. Povolná eds. Discourse interpretation: Approaches and applications. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing pp. 209-222.

  • TOMÁŠKOVÁ R. 2015. A walk through the multimodal landscape of university websites. Brno Studies in English vol. 41 no. 1 pp. 77-100.

  • TOMÁŠKOVÁ R. 2016. The polyphony of a super-genre: Blogs as a source of heteroglossia in university websites. In: R. Tomášková Ch. Hopkinson and G. Zapletalová eds. Professional genres from an interpersonal perspective. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing pp. 198-225.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 349 152 11
PDF Downloads 232 90 6