Intersemiotic Complementarity in Legal Cartoons: An Ideational Multimodal Analysis

Article

Abstract

The analysis of legal communication has almost exclusively been the domain of discourse analysts focusing on the ways that the linguistic system is used to realise legal meanings. Multimodal discourse analysis, where visual forms in combination with traditional linguistic expressions co-occur, is now also an area of expanding interest. Taking a Systemic Functional Linguistics “social semiotic” perspective, this paper applies and critiques an analytical framework that has been used for examining intersemiotic complementarity in various types of page-based multimodal texts by analysing a cartoon satirizing the demands that verdict deliberations can make on a citizen jury seated in a Crown Court. While the multimodal analysis reveals that a straightforward application of this analytical framework is useful in and of itself, it is argued that the framework needs to be extended to also account for further and more complex layers of represented meaning. The analysis is also situated in the wider legal social semiotic, and draws attention to international debates on the efficacy of the jury system itself.

Keywords

Multimodality Legal cartoons Jury system Intersemiotic complementarity Ideational metafunction 

References

  1. 1.
    Arnheim, Rudolf. 1969. Visual thinking. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnheim, Rudolf. 1974. Art and visual perception: the new version. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldry, Anthony, and Paul J. Thibault. 2006. Multimodal transcription and text analysis: a multimedia toolkit and coursebook. London/Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barthes, Roland. 1978. Image-music-text. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bateman, John A. 2008. Multimodality and genre: a foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal documents. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bateman, John, Judy Delin, and Renate Henschel. 2007. Mapping the multimodal genres of traditional and electronic newspapers. In New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse, ed. Terry Royce, and Wendy Bowcher, 147–172. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhatia, Vijay. 2002. Applied genre analysis: a multi-perspective model. Ibérica: Revista De La Asociación Europea De Lenguas Para Fines Específicos (AELFE) 4: 3–19.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bhatia, Vijay K. 2008. Genre analysis, ESP and professional practice. English for Specific Purposes 27: 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bloom, Robert M. 2006. Jury Trials in Japan. Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review. 28:35. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol28/iss1/2.
  10. 10.
    Bowcher, Wendy L. 2007. A multimodal analysis of good guys and bad guys in “Rugby League Week”. In New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse, ed. Terry Royce, and Wendy Bowcher, 239–274. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Butt, David, Rhonda Fahey, Sue Spinks, and Colin Yallop. 1995. Using functional grammar: an explorer’s guide. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research (NCELTR), Macquarie University.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chan, Eveline, and Len Unsworth. 2011. Image–language interaction in online reading environments: challenges for students’ reading comprehension. The Australian Educational Researcher 38: 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clermont, Kevin M, and Theodore Eisenberg. 1992. Trial by jury or judge: transcending empiricism. Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper 246. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/246. Accessed 19 Mar 2015.
  14. 14.
    Corporation, IAC. 2014. Dictionary.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire? Accessed 31 July 2014.
  15. 15.
    Croydon, Silvia A. 2012. Returning a verdict on the Jury: how the Japanese have reacted to the introduction of a Lay Judge System. Asian Journal of Comparative Law 7: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dondis, Donis A. 1973. A primer of visual literacy. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goodrich, Peter. 1984. Legal discourse: studies in linguistics, rhetoric and legal analysis. Unpublished PhD. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Halliday, M.A.K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Halliday, M.A.K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1985. Language, context, and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoffman, Kitty. 1979. A history of Vanity fair: a modernist journal in America. Ph.D., University of Toronto, Toronto. http://hdl.handle.net/11375/6883. Accessed March 20 2015.
  23. 23.
    Kiss, Lester W. 1999. Reviving the criminal Jury in Japan. Law and Contemporary Problems 62: 261–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kleeman, Grant. 2006. Not just for fun: using cartoons to investigate geographical issues. New Zealand Geographer 62: 144–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kress, Gunther R., and Theo Van Leeuwen. 1990. Reading images. Geelong: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kress, Gunther R., and Theo Van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kress, Gunther, and Theo V. Van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee, Jae-Hyup. 2009. Getting citizens involved: civil participation in judicial decision-making in Korea. East Asia Law Review 4: 177–207.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lemke, Jay. 2005. Multiplying meaning. In Reading science: critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science, ed. James R. Martin, and Robert Veel, 87–114. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Macken-Horarik, Mary. 2004. Interacting with the multimodal text: reflections on image and verbiage in Art Express. Visual Communication 3: 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McCloud, Scott. 1993. Understanding comics: the invisible art. Northampton: William Morrow Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miyazawa, Setsuo. 2013. Successes, failures, and remaining issues of the justice system reform in Japan: an introduction to the symposium issue. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 36: 313–623.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nöth, Winfried. 1995. Handbook of semiotics. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    O Halloran, Kay. 2003. Intersemiosis in mathematics and science: grammatical metaphor and semiotic metaphor. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4: 337–366.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    O’Toole, Michael. 1994. The language of displayed art. Clinical psychology and psychotherapy. London: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Royce, Terry. 1998. Synergy on the page: exploring intersemiotic complementarity in page-based multimodal text. JASFL Occasional Papers 1: 25–49.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Royce, Terry. 1999. Visual-verbal intersemiotic complementarity in The Economist Magazine. Unpublished Ph. D. Reading: University of Reading.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Royce, Terry. 2002. Multimodality in the TESOL classroom: exploring visual-verbal synergy. TESOL Quarterly 36: 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Royce, Terry. 2007. Intersemiotic complementarity: a framework for multimodal. In New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse, ed. Terry Royce, and Wendy Bowcher, 63–109. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Royce, Terry, and Wendy L. Bowcher. 2007. New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton. 2001. The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Unsworth, Len. 2006. Multiliteracies and a metalanguage of image/text relations: implications for teaching English as a first or additional language in the 21st century. TESOL in Context, Series S: Special Edition 1: 147–162.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Unsworth, Len. 2007. Image/text relations and intersemiosis: towards multimodal text description for multiliteracies education. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Systemic Functional Congress, ed. Leila Maria Beltramini, and Tony Berber-Sardinha, 1165–1205. São Paulo: PUCSP. Accessed August 2014.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ventola, Eija. 1995. Generic and register qualities of texts and their realization. In Discourse in society systemic functional perspectives, meaning and choice in language studies for Michael Halliday, vol. 50, ed. Peter H. Fries, and Michael Gregory, 3–28. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wetlaufer, Gerald B. 1990. Rhetoric and its denial in legal discourse. Virginia Law Review 76: 1545–1597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wikipedia. 2014. Satire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire. Accessed 31 July 2014.
  47. 47.
    Williams, Alex. 12th January 1999. Consider your verdict cartoon. http://www.qccartoon.com/images/cartoons/5_2_6.jpg. Accessed 13 Jan 2015.
  48. 48.
    Wilson, Matthew. 2006. Dawn of criminal Jury Trials in Japan: success on the horizon. The Wisconsin International Law Journal 24: 835–870.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Research SchoolUniversity of Technology Sydney (UTS)SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations