A Multimodal Discourse Analysis in English and Arabic Advertisement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31150/ajshr.v5i11.3065Keywords:
Multimodal Discourse Analysis, Multidimensional Semiotic System, Textual And Visual Levels Of Hamburger PicturesAbstract
This research studies the advertisement of hamburger from a multimodal discourse perspective. This topic is chosen because many marketing things entered the Iraqi culture affecting by other cultures. The use of multimodal discourse in English and Arabic advertising is examined in this study, which looks at how textual and visual components combine to produce messages that are convincing in a variety of linguistic and cultural situations. In order to appeal to audiences, advertising mostly uses multimodality to convey meaning by combining text, images, colors, and layout. The following inquiries are the main focus of this study: 1-In what ways do ads in Arabic and English use multimodal resources to communicate meaning?2- In what ways do the two languages employ these resources differently and similarly?3- What effects do language and cultural circumstances have on the strategies employed in these ads? The main goal of this study is to examine how each mode adds to the overall message by using a semiotic framework to the verbal and visual elements of hamburger ads in Arabic and English. A multimodal of this study is based on Halliday's (1985) metafunction model and Kress and van Leeuwen's (2006) social semiotics. These models are used to examine a sample of six hamburger ads, three from each linguistic setting. The results indicate that both English and Arabic ads use comparable multimodal strategies to engage viewers and convey brand messages despite linguistic and cultural differences. By demonstrating the variety and universality of multimodal techniques in worldwide marketplaces, this study advances our understanding of how multimodal discourse works in cross-cultural advertising.
References
S. Hautea, “Showing They Care (Or Don’t): Affective Publics and Ambivalent Climate Activism on TikTok,” Soc. Media Soc., vol. 7, no. 2, 2021, doi: 10.1177/20563051211012344.
M. Dynel, “COVID-19 memes going viral: On the multiple multimodal voices behind face masks,” Discourse Soc., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 175–195, 2021, doi: 10.1177/0957926520970385.
R. Azevedo, “Analyzing Multimodal Multichannel Data about Self-Regulated Learning with Advanced Learning Technologies: Issues and Challenges,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 96, pp. 207–210, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.025.
J. E. Peng, “The roles of multimodal pedagogic effects and classroom environment in willingness to communicate in English,” System, vol. 82, pp. 161–173, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.system.2019.04.006.
B. Setyono, “The representation of multicultural values in the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture-Endorsed EFL textbook: a critical discourse analysis,” Intercult. Educ., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 383–397, 2019, doi: 10.1080/14675986.2019.1548102.
D. Wu, “A high-performance CNN processor based on FPGA for mobilenets,” Proc. - 29th Int. Conf. Field-Programmable Log. Appl. FPL 2019, pp. 136–143, 2019, doi: 10.1109/FPL.2019.00030.
H. Choe, “Eating together multimodally: Collaborative eating in mukbang, a Korean livestream of eating,” Lang. Soc., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 171–208, 2019, doi: 10.1017/S0047404518001355.
S. Norris, “Systematically working with multimodal data: Research methods in multimodal discourse analysis,” Syst. Work. with Multimodal Data Res. Methods Multimodal Discourse Anal., pp. 1–301, 2019, doi: 10.1002/9781119168355.
A. Brock, “Critical technocultural discourse analysis,” New Media Soc., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1012–1030, 2018, doi: 10.1177/1461444816677532.
R. Page, “Narratives online: Shared stories in social media,” Narrat. Online Shar. Stories Soc. Media, pp. 1–229, 2018, doi: 10.1017/9781316492390.
K. L. O’halloran, “Multimodal Discourse Analysis,” Bloom. Companion to Discourse Anal., pp. 120–137, 2011.
N. Doerr, “Bridging language barriers, bonding against immigrants: A visual case study of transnational network publics created by far-right activists in Europe,” Discourse Soc., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 3–23, 2017, doi: 10.1177/0957926516676689.
M. Zappavigna, “Social media photography: construing subjectivity in Instagram images,” Vis. Commun., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 271–292, 2016, doi: 10.1177/1470357216643220.
Dik, S. C. (1989). The Theory of Functional Grammar: Part 1, The Structure of the Clause. Foris Publications.
Dik, S. C. (1997a). The Theory of Functional Grammar: Part 1, The Structure of the Clause (2nd edition). Mouton de Gruyter.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1st ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Huang, Y. (2009). Pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, Th. (2002). Colour as a semiotic mode: notes for a grammar of colour. Visual Communication, vol. 1(3): 343–368.
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, Th. (1996). Educating the eye. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. Language and Literature, vol. 8(2): 163–178.
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, Th. (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, Th. (2005). Introducing Social Semiotics. New York: Routledge.
https://www.pexels.com/search/hamburger/ accessed on 20/10/2024.
https://www.shutterstock.com/search/hamburger accessed on 7/11/2024.
https://www.istockphoto.com/photos/hamburger accessed on 10/11/2024.
