This article was downloaded by: [University of Minnesota Libraries, Twin Cities]

On: 18 June 2012, At: 07:38

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Rhetoric Society Quarterly

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrsq20

Multimodality: A Social-Semiotic
Approach to Contemporary
Communication, by Gunther Kress
Timothy Oleksiak
a

University of Minnesota

Available online: 11 Jun 2012

To cite this article: Timothy Oleksiak (2012): Multimodality: A Social-Semiotic Approach to

Contemporary 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. Any
substantial 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 representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Rhetoric Society Quarterly

Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 297306

Downloaded by [University of Minnesota Libraries, Twin Cities] at 07:38 18 June 2012

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 the
primary concerns of our field to be speech and writing. At its most simplistic,
Kresss work is an expansive account of how meaning is constructed. Kress argues
that his theory of multimodal social-semiotics accounts for the fact that all signs
in all modes are meaningful (59). Throughout his text, Kress makes a compelling
case for a more thoughtful consideration of how different modesspeech, writing,
gesture, color, 3D objects, moving pictures and so onrelate to each other in specific cultural contexts. Essentially, Kress argues for a more inclusive form of
communication, one that refuses to recognize writing, speech, or image as privileged modes. On this point specifically, Kress shares a theoretical space with scholars working within the relatively new field of Web 2.0 technology. The theory of
multimodal social-semiotics reveals that within the broad range of modal choices
available in a society, there is then the individuals decision to make choices to use
these modes rather than those in this environment for these reasons (76, emphasis
in original). Describing and analyzing these choices is the primary work of
multimodal social-semiotics.
Kresss early discussions of mode provide the important and necessary
scaffolding for his theory of multimodal texts. Here Kress believes that understanding the materiality of individual modes is significant because it places the
object of scholarly attention outside of abstract concepts like language and into
the embodied practices of communication. The problem Kress has with concepts
like language is that they are not a big enough receptacle for all the semiotic
stuff we felt sure we could pour into it (15). For Kress, language cannot
account for the modes of communication that fall outside of what is typically
included in theories of language. The drawback of these theories is that in some
sense both linguistics and pragmatics recognize the presence of other modesin
terms such as extra-linguistic, para-linguistic, non-verbal or in different kinds
of acknowledgement to features of context (59) that are in service of systems of
communication based on speech and text. In other words, previous linguistic and
social-semiotic theories relegate the majority of modes available to a position of
minimal importance.

ISSN 0277-3945 (print)/ISSN 1930-322X (online) # 2012 The Rhetoric Society of America
DOI: 10.1080/02773945.2012.682848

Downloaded by [University of Minnesota Libraries, Twin Cities] at 07:38 18 June 2012

298

Book Reviews

Without devaluing writing and speech, Kress explores the potential individual
modes have for making meaning based on their different affordances. As Kress
explains, the material of sound has been used in nearly all human societies as
speech to realize meanings; these meanings differ from those afforded by the
materiality of marks on a surface in writing (104). Recognizing the materiality
of modes as embodied practices of communication allows one to theorize how
these modes relate to each other to create a meaningful text for audiences.
Kress believes that meaning cannot be discussed without a sense of the
shapethe organizationof the social environment in which it is produced
whether as hierarchy or network (146). The shape of multimodal texts is articulated through the concept of arrangement. The way in which, for example, speech
and gesture are placed alongside each other provides insight into how each mode
means both independently and as a multimodal text. Moreover, part of arrangement requires an examination of how a multimodal text is framed. The issue of
framing centers on understanding how the unique material affordances of a given
mode demand different material means for framing (151). For example, 3D
objects require a different set of material practices for understanding than writing.
In writing, the page and rules of paragraphing essentially bind the way the mode
communicates. The rules that apply to writing cannot simply apply to 3D objects
where paragraphing does not exist. As Kress notes, depending on the mode and
its affordances, relations and connections may have any number of forms
(156, emphasis in original). Therefore, the way in which arrangement is understood depends on the affordance of a given mode. Additionally, Kress suggests
that arrangements cohere and mean based on the specific cultures ideological
and ontological systems. The leftright, topdown arrangement of Western written texts is embedded within a culturally specific ideology. Color and gesture are
similarly dependent on culture. This focus on how distinct modes relate within a
cultural framework to form meaning makes Kresss work important for scholars
of rhetoric.
In a particularly lucid passage, Kress explains how the workings of an in-flight
safety demonstration illustrate how singular arrangements combine to create
ensembles. The flight attendants gestures and engagement with speech and 3D
objects are arranged in a specific order to create meaning for the passengers. This
demonstration accompanies a visual manual that provides instructions for what
to do in case of an emergency. The two distinct texts with their unique arrangements are orchestrated in a deliberate sequence that creates ensembles that take on
new meaning different from the meanings created by any one arrangement. In
terms more fitting to Kresss theory: Orchestrations and the resultant ensembles
can be organized in space and they can be organized in time, in sequence, in
process, in motion (162). The fact that we move in the world, for Kress, suggests
that our positioning in relation to texts is always changing. Given this changing
position, we notice differences in framing and selection. The sequencing and

Downloaded by [University of Minnesota Libraries, Twin Cities] at 07:38 18 June 2012

Book Reviews

299

the juxtaposition of different arrangements into ensembles communicate to the

viewer that they have been orchestrated for that viewer specifically.
Although this review is concerned primarily with Kresss central argument,
it would be incomplete if it did not speak to the powerful implications of
multimodal social-semiotics for theories of pedagogy and literacy. Kress asks us
to consider the principle of recognition as a heuristic device for teachers (181,
emphasis in original). If students are able to communicate an understanding of
complex processes by drawing a sequence of pictures rather than writing out
the steps, then on what grounds should teachers (in)validate such recognition
as a credible form of learning? It is, at least, an interesting question. It is one that
challenges us to reconsider traditional notions of literacy and learning as well. We
would do right as a profession to take such questions seriously.
Ultimately, there are two significant limitations to Kresss otherwise thoughtful
theoretical contribution to the field of semiotics. First, Kresss theory of
multimodal social-semiotics is useful as an explanation of how globalization
and the accompanying logics of neoliberalism lead to changes in the way individuals communicate. However, the closest thing we get to a critique of these social
conditions is Kresss statement that the trend is unsettling (185). What is less
developed in both the practical applications and the theory itself, unfortunately,
is how sign-makers and interpreters might design modes of communication to
resist these social conditions. Kress understands the sign-making rhetor as an agent
that works within pre-existing cultural norms rather than a sign-maker who might
critique and alter these norms. This lack of a concept of resistance in Kresss theory
of multimodal social-semiotics is surprising given his previous discussion of ethical dimensions of arrangement. And although scholars in our field frequently
develop theories whose primary function is to explain how rhetorical principles
work within current cultural systems, those of us looking for articulations of
resistance will be left wanting.
Second, and perhaps more troublesome, is the fact that the theory of multimodal social-semiotics pays little attention to audience. Kress tips his classical,
neo-Aristotelian hat when he writes that the rhetor has achieved nothing if members of the audience do not attend to and engage with and interpret the message
meant as a prompt for them (44, emphasis in original). Thus, for Kress, the role of
the audience begins with the assumption that multimodal texts come to audiences
always already finished. The result is that little attention is given to the role the
audience plays in meaning construction. Ultimately, these limitations are areas
in need of further exploration into multimodal social-semiotics, explorations that
rhetoricians would welcome. For his part, Kress has constructed a solid foundation
on which to begin such work.

Timothy Oleksiak
University of Minnesota