Page 316 - Lazar, Irena, Aleksander Panjek in Jonatan Vinkler. Ur. 2020. Mikro in makro. Pristopi in prispevki k humanističnim vedam ob dvajsetletnici UP Fakultete za humanistične študije, 2. knjiga. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem.
P. 316
mikro in makro: pr istopi in pr ispevki k humanističnim vedam ob dvajsetletnici up fhš
And if we consult the verbal part of the encyclopaedia, describing this
fruit, we find the following (once more, please, pay attention to emphaseses):
Maclura pomifera, commonly called Osage orange, hedge apple,
horse apple, bois d’arc, bodark, or bodock is a small deciduous tree
or large shrub, typically growing to 8-15 meters (26.49 ft) tall. It is
dioecious, with male and female flowers on different plants. The
fruit, a multiple fruit, is roughly spherical, but bumpy, and 7.6–15
centimeters (3–6 in) in diameter. It is filled with sticky white latex.
In fall, its color turns a bright yellow-green.
[...]
Osage orange occurred historically in the Red River drainage of
Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas and in the Blackland Prairies,
Post Oak Savannas, and Chisos Mountains of Texas. It has been
widely naturalized in the United States and Ontario. (Wikipedia,
Maclura:)
As you can see for yourself, the verbal description of Maclura pomifera
actually fits the Detroit river fruit much more accurately than the descripti-
on of breadfruit. And since we also learn that the Osage orange “has been
widely naturalized in the United States and Ontario” it is much more pro-
bable to conclude that the fruit found in the Detroit river was an osage
orange (Maclura pomifera), and not a breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis)
3. Thousands of Words and a Single Picture
What can we learn from this? Above all that sayings like: “A picture tel-
ls a thousand words” should be indeed taken seriously. But, to be (absolu-
tely) sure which of those thousand words refer to that particular picture we
have in front of us in these particular circumstances, we have to cut down
(on) those words considerably. On the other hand, without any words at all,
we can hardly identify the exact content of the picture, as our Detroit fru-
it example clearly showed.
In other words, this reconstruction shows that there is no pure visu-
al argumentation, relying on the epistemology of “reasoning is seeing” (as
there are, probably, very few purely verbal arguments; if any at all). Instead
of visual argumentation (or purely verbal argumentation, for that matter),
we should be (always) talk about multimodal argumentation and multimo-
dal meaning (combining, in our case, primarily visual and verbal, but other
semiotic modes are involved as well, such as gesture and gaze).
692
And if we consult the verbal part of the encyclopaedia, describing this
fruit, we find the following (once more, please, pay attention to emphaseses):
Maclura pomifera, commonly called Osage orange, hedge apple,
horse apple, bois d’arc, bodark, or bodock is a small deciduous tree
or large shrub, typically growing to 8-15 meters (26.49 ft) tall. It is
dioecious, with male and female flowers on different plants. The
fruit, a multiple fruit, is roughly spherical, but bumpy, and 7.6–15
centimeters (3–6 in) in diameter. It is filled with sticky white latex.
In fall, its color turns a bright yellow-green.
[...]
Osage orange occurred historically in the Red River drainage of
Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas and in the Blackland Prairies,
Post Oak Savannas, and Chisos Mountains of Texas. It has been
widely naturalized in the United States and Ontario. (Wikipedia,
Maclura:)
As you can see for yourself, the verbal description of Maclura pomifera
actually fits the Detroit river fruit much more accurately than the descripti-
on of breadfruit. And since we also learn that the Osage orange “has been
widely naturalized in the United States and Ontario” it is much more pro-
bable to conclude that the fruit found in the Detroit river was an osage
orange (Maclura pomifera), and not a breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis)
3. Thousands of Words and a Single Picture
What can we learn from this? Above all that sayings like: “A picture tel-
ls a thousand words” should be indeed taken seriously. But, to be (absolu-
tely) sure which of those thousand words refer to that particular picture we
have in front of us in these particular circumstances, we have to cut down
(on) those words considerably. On the other hand, without any words at all,
we can hardly identify the exact content of the picture, as our Detroit fru-
it example clearly showed.
In other words, this reconstruction shows that there is no pure visu-
al argumentation, relying on the epistemology of “reasoning is seeing” (as
there are, probably, very few purely verbal arguments; if any at all). Instead
of visual argumentation (or purely verbal argumentation, for that matter),
we should be (always) talk about multimodal argumentation and multimo-
dal meaning (combining, in our case, primarily visual and verbal, but other
semiotic modes are involved as well, such as gesture and gaze).
692
