Page 317 - 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. 317
reasoning and representation in “visual argumentation”
But multimodal meaning and multimodal argumentation require dif
ferent (expanded, at least) analytical framework, let us call it multimodal
analysis, more particularly and with an important emphasis: interactive-re-
cursive multimodal analysis. And in relation to this very important distin-
ction (multimodal analysis vs. interactive-recursive multimodal analysis), I
would like to emphasize a few points.
In cases where just “seeing” is not enough, and we have to rely on ver-
bal (or other) sources (and incorporate other types of signs, like gestures,
gazes and others), we should be talking of “enchronic analysis” (Enfield
2009). What is enchronic analysis (of which our analysis of the Detroit river
fruit is a rather exemplary case, as we shall see a few paragraphs later)? Here
is a short definition, we have already encountered on the page 2:
Enchronic analysis is concerned with relations between data from
neighbouring moments, adjacent units of behaviour in locally cohe-
rent communicative sequences (Enfield 2009, 10).
As we well know, mostly from linguistics, synchronic analysis gives us
a horizontal cross section of investigated phenomena, it somehow freezes
the actual state of things (in a certain domain). Diachronic analysis, on the
other hand, gives us a vertical cross section of the investigated phenomena,
it looks at how state of things (in a certain domain) has changed through
time and history.
Enchronic analysis, on the contrary, is looking at (Enfield 2009) se-
quences of social interaction in which the moves that constitute social ac-
tions occur as responses to other such moves, and in turn these moves give
rise to further moves. We could say that enchrony dynamically, interactive-
ly and recursively combines synchrony and diachrony, that it opens syn-
chrony to diachrony, that it injects diachronicity into synchronicity on a
micro level.
The Detroit river fruit example is exactly a case in point: from obser-
vation of the photos of the fruit taken on the river, we have to move to the
observation of the photos in encyclopedias and compare the two. And to
get more complete and accurate information (since the photos do not tell
the whole story), we have to switch from the photos to the text and incor-
porate the textual information as well. And since the text opens new ques-
tions/problems about the photos, we have to look for yet other photos, and
from those switch back to yet another text. And finally, we (have to) com-
pare all these again with the initial photo (of the fruit taken on the river).
693
But multimodal meaning and multimodal argumentation require dif
ferent (expanded, at least) analytical framework, let us call it multimodal
analysis, more particularly and with an important emphasis: interactive-re-
cursive multimodal analysis. And in relation to this very important distin-
ction (multimodal analysis vs. interactive-recursive multimodal analysis), I
would like to emphasize a few points.
In cases where just “seeing” is not enough, and we have to rely on ver-
bal (or other) sources (and incorporate other types of signs, like gestures,
gazes and others), we should be talking of “enchronic analysis” (Enfield
2009). What is enchronic analysis (of which our analysis of the Detroit river
fruit is a rather exemplary case, as we shall see a few paragraphs later)? Here
is a short definition, we have already encountered on the page 2:
Enchronic analysis is concerned with relations between data from
neighbouring moments, adjacent units of behaviour in locally cohe-
rent communicative sequences (Enfield 2009, 10).
As we well know, mostly from linguistics, synchronic analysis gives us
a horizontal cross section of investigated phenomena, it somehow freezes
the actual state of things (in a certain domain). Diachronic analysis, on the
other hand, gives us a vertical cross section of the investigated phenomena,
it looks at how state of things (in a certain domain) has changed through
time and history.
Enchronic analysis, on the contrary, is looking at (Enfield 2009) se-
quences of social interaction in which the moves that constitute social ac-
tions occur as responses to other such moves, and in turn these moves give
rise to further moves. We could say that enchrony dynamically, interactive-
ly and recursively combines synchrony and diachrony, that it opens syn-
chrony to diachrony, that it injects diachronicity into synchronicity on a
micro level.
The Detroit river fruit example is exactly a case in point: from obser-
vation of the photos of the fruit taken on the river, we have to move to the
observation of the photos in encyclopedias and compare the two. And to
get more complete and accurate information (since the photos do not tell
the whole story), we have to switch from the photos to the text and incor-
porate the textual information as well. And since the text opens new ques-
tions/problems about the photos, we have to look for yet other photos, and
from those switch back to yet another text. And finally, we (have to) com-
pare all these again with the initial photo (of the fruit taken on the river).
693
