Page 320 - 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. 320
Speaking of the photo as such, it is these five layers of meaning that
form an amalgam of signs. But, even more layers of meaning could be ad-
ded, depending on the 1) background knowledge of the observer and inter-
preter, as well as 2) the context in which the photo is interpreted.
In view of all that has been said, let us return to the fruit found in
Detroit river. If after checking and re-checking different photos, different
texts, and the two photos of a strange fruit that was found in Detroit river,
we finally point (and very probably gaze) at it, declaring: “This fruit is not
a bread fruit!”, we have produced a composite utterance, enchronically (i.e.
dynamically, interactively and recursively) embracing several, at least nine,
layers of meaning-making moves:
1. checking the photos of the Detroit river fruit,
2. checking the photos of breadfruit in different encyclopaedias,
3. checking the text that comments on those photos,
4. checking the Detroit river fruit again,
5. looking for more photos of similar fruits,
6. checking the text that comments on those fruits,
7. rechecking the Detroit river fruit again,
8. finding out that the Detroit river fruit is not a breadfruit,
9. making clear (voice, gesture, gaze) that the Detroit river fruit is
not a breadfruit.
These nine layers belong to and are expressed by three types of signs
that are enchronically combined in almost every of the nine steps (con-
ventional signs: words/text; non-conventional signs: photos, gesture, gaze;
symbolic indexical: demonstrative pronoun “this”, linking the conventio-
nal and non-conventional signs).
Put in other words and more explicitly. As it, hopefully, became clear
analyzing the Detroit fruit example, reasoning is not and cannot be just
seeing, and just seeing is not and cannot be reasoning. Consequently, there
could be no “pure” visual, but only multimodal argumentation: at least ver-
bal and probably other codes should be taken into consideration in order to
reach sufficient, satisfying and complete meaning interpretation. But this
is not all: all these codes should be taken into consideration dynamically,
not statically: in their recursive interaction, i.e. switching from one code to
the other and back. Therefore, in order to gain analytic credibility and in-
terpretive force, scholars working on visual argumentation would be much
better off if they included enchrony in their conceptual framework, and
696
form an amalgam of signs. But, even more layers of meaning could be ad-
ded, depending on the 1) background knowledge of the observer and inter-
preter, as well as 2) the context in which the photo is interpreted.
In view of all that has been said, let us return to the fruit found in
Detroit river. If after checking and re-checking different photos, different
texts, and the two photos of a strange fruit that was found in Detroit river,
we finally point (and very probably gaze) at it, declaring: “This fruit is not
a bread fruit!”, we have produced a composite utterance, enchronically (i.e.
dynamically, interactively and recursively) embracing several, at least nine,
layers of meaning-making moves:
1. checking the photos of the Detroit river fruit,
2. checking the photos of breadfruit in different encyclopaedias,
3. checking the text that comments on those photos,
4. checking the Detroit river fruit again,
5. looking for more photos of similar fruits,
6. checking the text that comments on those fruits,
7. rechecking the Detroit river fruit again,
8. finding out that the Detroit river fruit is not a breadfruit,
9. making clear (voice, gesture, gaze) that the Detroit river fruit is
not a breadfruit.
These nine layers belong to and are expressed by three types of signs
that are enchronically combined in almost every of the nine steps (con-
ventional signs: words/text; non-conventional signs: photos, gesture, gaze;
symbolic indexical: demonstrative pronoun “this”, linking the conventio-
nal and non-conventional signs).
Put in other words and more explicitly. As it, hopefully, became clear
analyzing the Detroit fruit example, reasoning is not and cannot be just
seeing, and just seeing is not and cannot be reasoning. Consequently, there
could be no “pure” visual, but only multimodal argumentation: at least ver-
bal and probably other codes should be taken into consideration in order to
reach sufficient, satisfying and complete meaning interpretation. But this
is not all: all these codes should be taken into consideration dynamically,
not statically: in their recursive interaction, i.e. switching from one code to
the other and back. Therefore, in order to gain analytic credibility and in-
terpretive force, scholars working on visual argumentation would be much
better off if they included enchrony in their conceptual framework, and
696
