A Theory of Contemporary Rhetoric Read Online Free Page A
Author: Richard Andrews
acknowledged, multimodality does not constitute a theory (a patterned means of explaining how its constituent parts relate to each other and to the world), but rather
material for a theory
. Later in the book ( chapters 11 , 12 ) there is discussion of how social semiotics and rhetoric relate to each other in terms of providing such a theory.
In terms of media, one could say that a different mode and medium than words on a printed page might capture the completeness of the scene better than my minimal written notes in the café. To move quickly through the possibilities of soundscapes and still images (painting, photography) to fully fledged film, how would this twentieth-century medium,
film
— incorporating, as it does, moving image, sound (including speech), written words, and time/spatial characteristics—represent the actual scene? The limitations of film immediately present themselves as problems in representing the totality of the experience: first, film tends to use a limited number of cameras and thus a limited number of perspectives on the scene. It would need hundreds of cameras and the combinations of their recorded images to represent the scene in its totality. There would need to be extensive and judicious editing to frame the scene. At best, a kaleidoscopic and selective representation of the scene would be all that we couldproduce. There is no substitute for being in the actual scene, with smells, air quality, and ambience, even though a limited individual perspective shares the same limitations of a filmic camera position with its ability to focus, change aperture, and so forth. Second, film is subject to its own affordances and limitations—it is, by nature, a representative, selective take on a scene. Third, you need some kind of hardware viewer (the medium of smartphone, TV screen, computer screen, or cinema screen) to receive the message.
Elsewhere (Andrews 2010), I have explored the contribution of
framing
to the understanding of how communication acts are made and received. But, again, framing does not constitute a theory
per se
. It is a mezzanine-level heuristic for working out how the resources of modes, via their various media, can be made to “make sense” in a shared communicational space. Framing comes close to a theory because it draws on social and aesthetic considerations in order to define the parameters of the communicational encounter. But it remains an act (of framing) rather than an underpinning or overarching theory.
So, multimodality and framing are important constituents in helping us to make meaning and to communicate it. The third element that is needed in order to complete the repertoire of resources and heuristics is articulation.
Articulation
is a useful term in that it has two meanings: One is concerned with the clear expression of ideas, thoughts, and feelings. This aspect of the term is usually associated with words. The other is to do with the joining of parts of an entity, as in the example of an articulated truck. We can apply both meanings of the terms to a range of different modes and their combination, in order to bring the term
articulation
into line with the way we are moving: toward a comprehensive and multimodal theory of contemporary rhetoric.
Judt (2010) was particularly concerned with the sense of articulation in terms of clear expression of thought. To state clearly what is intended, without obfuscation or unnecessary decoration, hesitation, diversion, or vagueness, is an art. The articulation can be of feelings as well as thoughts and ideas, or it can be more coolly to do with the accurate and valid expression of an idea—like the design of the London underground map. This latter example makes it clear that articulation is more than just the expression of thoughts or feelings by an individual; it can also apply to sound, visual art, film-making, or design work of any kind. The idea of articulation in this sense is central to rhetoric because of
material for a theory
. Later in the book ( chapters 11 , 12 ) there is discussion of how social semiotics and rhetoric relate to each other in terms of providing such a theory.
In terms of media, one could say that a different mode and medium than words on a printed page might capture the completeness of the scene better than my minimal written notes in the café. To move quickly through the possibilities of soundscapes and still images (painting, photography) to fully fledged film, how would this twentieth-century medium,
film
— incorporating, as it does, moving image, sound (including speech), written words, and time/spatial characteristics—represent the actual scene? The limitations of film immediately present themselves as problems in representing the totality of the experience: first, film tends to use a limited number of cameras and thus a limited number of perspectives on the scene. It would need hundreds of cameras and the combinations of their recorded images to represent the scene in its totality. There would need to be extensive and judicious editing to frame the scene. At best, a kaleidoscopic and selective representation of the scene would be all that we couldproduce. There is no substitute for being in the actual scene, with smells, air quality, and ambience, even though a limited individual perspective shares the same limitations of a filmic camera position with its ability to focus, change aperture, and so forth. Second, film is subject to its own affordances and limitations—it is, by nature, a representative, selective take on a scene. Third, you need some kind of hardware viewer (the medium of smartphone, TV screen, computer screen, or cinema screen) to receive the message.
Elsewhere (Andrews 2010), I have explored the contribution of
framing
to the understanding of how communication acts are made and received. But, again, framing does not constitute a theory
per se
. It is a mezzanine-level heuristic for working out how the resources of modes, via their various media, can be made to “make sense” in a shared communicational space. Framing comes close to a theory because it draws on social and aesthetic considerations in order to define the parameters of the communicational encounter. But it remains an act (of framing) rather than an underpinning or overarching theory.
So, multimodality and framing are important constituents in helping us to make meaning and to communicate it. The third element that is needed in order to complete the repertoire of resources and heuristics is articulation.
Articulation
is a useful term in that it has two meanings: One is concerned with the clear expression of ideas, thoughts, and feelings. This aspect of the term is usually associated with words. The other is to do with the joining of parts of an entity, as in the example of an articulated truck. We can apply both meanings of the terms to a range of different modes and their combination, in order to bring the term
articulation
into line with the way we are moving: toward a comprehensive and multimodal theory of contemporary rhetoric.
Judt (2010) was particularly concerned with the sense of articulation in terms of clear expression of thought. To state clearly what is intended, without obfuscation or unnecessary decoration, hesitation, diversion, or vagueness, is an art. The articulation can be of feelings as well as thoughts and ideas, or it can be more coolly to do with the accurate and valid expression of an idea—like the design of the London underground map. This latter example makes it clear that articulation is more than just the expression of thoughts or feelings by an individual; it can also apply to sound, visual art, film-making, or design work of any kind. The idea of articulation in this sense is central to rhetoric because of
Readers choose
Derek Fee
Hilary Thomson
Sydney Logan
Ruby Laska
B.R. Nicholson
Jeffery Deaver
Christopher Brookmyre
Carola Dunn
William David