Image-Text Relations

Martin & Rose (2007: 327-8, 333n):

Image-text relations include their logical relations, the boundaries between text and image, and identification. Logical relationships can be mapped in terms of expansion or projection, as we described for texts in macrogenres in Chapter 8. For example, images and texts can restate, specify or summarise each other (elaborating), they can be added to each other (extending), or explain or follow each other in time (enhancing). Images can also project wordings as thought or speech bubbles, and the reverse is also possible. Boundaries between image and text may be weak or strong: images may intrude into text, and text may overlap images, or there may be strong demarcation. And finally elements of images may be identified explicitly in accompanying texts (e.g. in captions), and elements of text or other images may be referred to in accompanying images, for example by vectors that point to them.⁸

⁸ Kress and van Leeuwen draw attention to vectors, which can be constructed through the gaze of participants or lines formed by the position of people and things. Whereas they interpret vectors in ideational terms, its seems to us that vectors are realisational strategies for ideational or textual functions.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Importantly, and not acknowledged here, these logical and identification relations obtain at the level of content, whereas the text-image boundary relations obtain at the level of expression.

[2] To be clear, the authors' model of logical discourse semantics, the system of conjunction (now rebranded 'connexion'), does not use the general category 'expansion', and 'projection' is entirely absent. This is because Martin's model is his rebranding of cohesive conjunction (Halliday & Hasan 1976), in which the general category of expansion had not yet been theorised by Halliday, and in which projection plays no cohesive function.

[3] To be clear, this would involve instances like he said <image>, and she thought <image>.

[4] To be clear, as previously demonstrated in the examination of Chapter 5, the authors' model of identification is a confusion of 'reference' in the textually cohesive sense, and 'reference' in the ideational sense of denotation. It will be seen that this misunderstanding is maintained in their discussion of image-text relations.