This article was downloaded by: [University of Minnesota Libraries, Twin Cities]On: 18 June 2012, At: 07:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Rhetoric Society QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrsq20

Multimodality: A Social-SemioticApproach to ContemporaryCommunication, by Gunther KressTimothy Oleksiak aa University of Minnesota

Available online: 11 Jun 2012

To cite this article: Timothy Oleksiak (2012): Multimodality: A Social-Semiotic Approach toContemporary Communication, by Gunther Kress, Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 42:3, 297-299

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2012.682848

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Book Reviews

Multimodality: A Social-Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication,by Gunther Kress. New York: Routledge, 2010. xiii !197 pp.

Multimodality is a provocative challenge to those of us who understand theprimary concerns of our field to be speech and writing. At its most simplistic,Kress’s work is an expansive account of how meaning is constructed. Kress arguesthat his theory of multimodal social-semiotics accounts for the fact that ‘‘all signsin all modes are meaningful’’ (59). Throughout his text, Kress makes a compellingcase for a more thoughtful consideration of how different modes—speech, writing,gesture, color, 3D objects, moving pictures and so on—relate to each other in spe-cific cultural contexts. Essentially, Kress argues for a more inclusive form ofcommunication, one that refuses to recognize writing, speech, or image as privi-leged modes. On this point specifically, Kress shares a theoretical space with scho-lars working within the relatively new field of Web 2.0 technology. The theory ofmultimodal social-semiotics reveals that ‘‘within the broad range of modal choicesavailable in a society, there is then the individual’s decision to make choices to usethese modes rather than those in this environment for these reasons’’ (76, emphasisin original). Describing and analyzing these choices is the primary work ofmultimodal social-semiotics.Kress’s early discussions of mode provide the important and necessary

scaffolding for his theory of multimodal texts. Here Kress believes that under-standing the materiality of individual modes is significant because it places theobject of scholarly attention outside of abstract concepts like ‘‘language’’ and intothe embodied practices of communication. The problem Kress has with conceptslike ‘‘language’’ is that they are ‘‘not a big enough receptacle for all the semioticstuff we felt sure we could pour into it’’ (15). For Kress, ‘‘language’’ cannotaccount for the modes of communication that fall outside of what is typicallyincluded in theories of language. The drawback of these theories is that ‘‘in somesense both linguistics and pragmatics recognize the presence of other modes—interms such as ‘extra-linguistic’, ‘para-linguistic’, ‘non-verbal’ or in different kindsof acknowledgement to features of ‘context’’’ (59) that are in service of systems ofcommunication based on speech and text. In other words, previous linguistic andsocial-semiotic theories relegate the majority of modes available to a position ofminimal importance.

Rhetoric Society QuarterlyVol. 42, No. 3, pp. 297–306

ISSN 0277-3945 (print)/ISSN 1930-322X (online) # 2012 The Rhetoric Society of America

DOI: 10.1080/02773945.2012.682848

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Lib

rarie

s, Tw

in C

ities

] at 0

7:38

18

June

201

2

Without devaluing writing and speech, Kress explores the potential individualmodes have for making meaning based on their different affordances. As Kressexplains, ‘‘the material of sound has been used in nearly all human societies asspeech to realize meanings; these meanings differ from those afforded by themateriality of marks on a surface in writing’’ (104). Recognizing the materialityof modes as embodied practices of communication allows one to theorize howthese modes relate to each other to create a meaningful text for audiences.Kress believes that ‘‘meaning cannot be discussed without a sense of the

shape—the organization—of the social environment in which it is producedwhether as hierarchy or network’’ (146). The shape of multimodal texts is articu-lated through the concept of arrangement. The way in which, for example, speechand gesture are placed alongside each other provides insight into how each modemeans both independently and as a multimodal text. Moreover, part of arrange-ment requires an examination of how a multimodal text is framed. The issue offraming centers on understanding how the unique material affordances of a givenmode demand different ‘‘material means for framing’’ (151). For example, 3Dobjects require a different set of material practices for understanding than writing.In writing, the page and rules of paragraphing essentially bind the way the modecommunicates. The rules that apply to writing cannot simply apply to 3D objectswhere paragraphing does not exist. As Kress notes, ‘‘depending on the mode andits affordances, relations and connections may have any number of forms’’(156, emphasis in original). Therefore, the way in which arrangement is under-stood depends on the affordance of a given mode. Additionally, Kress suggeststhat arrangements cohere and mean based on the specific culture’s ideologicaland ontological systems. The left–right, top–down arrangement of Western writ-ten texts is embedded within a culturally specific ideology. Color and gesture aresimilarly dependent on culture. This focus on how distinct modes relate within acultural framework to form meaning makes Kress’s work important for scholarsof rhetoric.In a particularly lucid passage, Kress explains how the workings of an in-flight

safety demonstration illustrate how singular arrangements combine to createensembles. The flight attendant’s gestures and engagement with speech and 3Dobjects are arranged in a specific order to create meaning for the passengers. Thisdemonstration accompanies a visual manual that provides instructions for whatto do in case of an emergency. The two distinct texts with their unique arrange-ments are orchestrated in a deliberate sequence that creates ensembles that take onnew meaning different from the meanings created by any one arrangement. Interms more fitting to Kress’s theory: ‘‘Orchestrations and the resultant ensemblescan be organized in space and they can be organized in time, in sequence, inprocess, in motion’’ (162). The fact that we move in the world, for Kress, suggeststhat our positioning in relation to texts is always changing. Given this changingposition, we notice differences in framing and selection. The sequencing and

298 Book Reviews

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Lib

rarie

s, Tw

in C

ities

] at 0

7:38

18

June

201

2

the juxtaposition of different arrangements into ensembles communicate to theviewer that they have been orchestrated for that viewer specifically.Although this review is concerned primarily with Kress’s central argument,

it would be incomplete if it did not speak to the powerful implications ofmultimodal social-semiotics for theories of pedagogy and literacy. Kress asks usto consider ‘‘the principle of recognition as a heuristic device for teachers’’ (181,emphasis in original). If students are able to communicate an understanding ofcomplex processes by drawing a sequence of pictures rather than writing outthe steps, then on what grounds should teachers (in)validate such recognitionas a credible form of learning? It is, at least, an interesting question. It is one thatchallenges us to reconsider traditional notions of literacy and learning as well. Wewould do right as a profession to take such questions seriously.Ultimately, there are two significant limitations to Kress’s otherwise thoughtful

theoretical contribution to the field of semiotics. First, Kress’s theory ofmultimodal social-semiotics is useful as an explanation of how globalizationand the accompanying logics of neoliberalism lead to changes in the way indivi-duals communicate. However, the closest thing we get to a critique of these socialconditions is Kress’s statement that the trend is ‘‘unsettling’’ (185). What is lessdeveloped in both the practical applications and the theory itself, unfortunately,is how sign-makers and interpreters might design modes of communication toresist these social conditions. Kress understands the sign-making rhetor as an agentthat works within pre-existing cultural norms rather than a sign-maker who mightcritique and alter these norms. This lack of a concept of resistance in Kress’s theoryof multimodal social-semiotics is surprising given his previous discussion of ethi-cal dimensions of arrangement. And although scholars in our field frequentlydevelop theories whose primary function is to explain how rhetorical principleswork within current cultural systems, those of us looking for articulations ofresistance will be left wanting.Second, and perhaps more troublesome, is the fact that the theory of multi-

modal social-semiotics pays little attention to audience. Kress tips his classical,neo-Aristotelian hat when he writes that the ‘‘rhetor has achieved nothing if mem-bers of the audience do not attend to and engage with and interpret the messagemeant as a prompt for them’’ (44, emphasis in original). Thus, for Kress, the role ofthe audience begins with the assumption that multimodal texts come to audiencesalways already finished. The result is that little attention is given to the role theaudience plays in meaning construction. Ultimately, these limitations are areasin need of further exploration into multimodal social-semiotics, explorations thatrhetoricians would welcome. For his part, Kress has constructed a solid foundationon which to begin such work.

Timothy OleksiakUniversity of Minnesota

Book Reviews 299

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of M

inne

sota

Lib

rarie

s, Tw

in C

ities

] at 0

7:38

18

June

201

2