Discourse Analysis on a multimodal new media platform

1. An account of the approach you are taking to discourse analysis:
Before analysing van Dijk’s ideological approach to discourse analysis, we want to briefly introduce the key concepts of discourse and multimodality, which we feel and van Dijk argues are an integral part of discourse analysis. Devereux (2007a, p.247) describes discourse simply as a ‘form of knowledge’. This implies the notion that it is something we know, however Devereux’s definition is a simplistic one that does not tell us how discourse is used and it does not imply that people have varying degrees of knowledge. Van Dijk 1998a (cited in Devereux 2007a, p.175) says that discourse “has a special function in the implementation and especially the reproduction of ideologies, since it is only through language use, discourse or communication (or other semiotic practices) that they can be explicitly formulated”.

Through these semiotic practices we can see how dominant discourses are maintained and how they can be challenged in the new media arena. LeVine and Scollon (2004, p.2) describe modes of communication as “any of the many ways in which a semiotic system with an internal grammaticality, such as speech, color, taste, or the design of images, may be developed”. In essence, they describe multimodality as focussing on “language in use” across these various modes and conclude that we must also focus on design, typography and layout without neglecting written text and vice versa (LeVine and Scollon 2004, p.2).

Keeping these concepts in mind we will now move on to introducing van Dijk’s ideological approach to discourse analysis. Van Dijk’s approach to discourse analysis is concerned with the function of ideology and power relations. Devereux (2007b, p.121) argues that van Dijk’s ideological square is “intended to highlight key ‘functional moves’ in developing an ideological strategy”. Central to this approach are what van Dijk terms “positive in-group description and negative out-group description” van Dijk 1998 (cited in Devereux 2007b, p.121). Van Dijk’s (1995) model has three main levels of analysis: Social analysis, cognitive analysis and discourse analysis. We will introduce this tripartite model, with a particular focus to discourse analysis as this is a recurring theme and the specific aim of our project.

Social analysis: A social analysis according to van Dijk (1995, p.20) would involve an examination of societal structures, political parties, group relations and structures. It is in these societal structures and group relations that ideology will be most evident. Group structures involve specifics such as identity, tasks, position and resources. This may be evident in our multimodal discourse analysis, especially in terms of how the website identifies with its target users and tries to challenge the dominant discourses.

Cognitive Analysis: A cognitive analysis argues that texts do not simply “have” meanings, but are given meanings by language users, readers, viewers, etc. These also include mental and structural processes where the language user will try to make sense of the information in relation to their own systems of beliefs and attitudes (Jensen and Jankowski 1991, p.117). A cognitive analysis would analyse what ideologies and systems of attitudes are evident in the text, however van Dijk (1995, p.20) also argues for the need to look at the sociocultural knowledge, i.e. what we know about society, groups and language. Entwined with this analysis is personal cognition which may be context free or context bound. These include thoughts, ideologies and attitudes shaped by personal convictions or models of events and contexts (van Dijk 1995, p.20). This too may be evident in our multimodal discourse analysis as the attitudes and thoughts of the main user group may reflect how certain points are emphasized and how others are excluded across the various modes.

Discourse analysis: Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the many media of communication. It is a method of research “focused on the analysis of text and talk, discourse analysis is concerned with the use of language in a social context and the relationship between language use and (unequal) power relationships” (Devereux 2007a, p.247). Discourse analysis looks at the various structures and frameworks of “text and talk”. These would include linguistic features such as nominalization, active/passive sentence as well as use of syntax, rhetoric, lexicon, local and global semantics to name but a few (van Dijk 1995, p.20), as well as an analysis of the colours and images used, paralanguage-“meaningful behaviour accompanying language”, which includes: gestures, facial expressions, choice of typeface and letter sizes in writing, music, etc. (Cook 2001, p.64).

2. A description of the context of the website and your methodological framework:
The website that we have chosen to complete a multimodal discourse analysis project on is lgbtNOISE 2009 (available at: http://lgbtnoise.ie/). The website was designed in response to the Irish Governments rejection of the Civil Union Bill in March 2007. It offers information to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people in Ireland, and it also acts as a tool to attract media attention “on the question of same-sex marriage” (lgbtNOISE 2009). The website also offers viewers an array of information from newspaper archives (bigot watch) and media clips. It keeps them up to date with community news and events (protests, demonstrations and stunts) as well as opening and tapping into the new media environment, where they also supply links to their pages on Facebook, Twitter, Bebo and YouTube to name but a few.

The website seems to be on first inspection, viewer friendly and has a recurring theme of inclusion and activism. Polls, petitions, a subscription tab and comment threads allow viewers and members the chance to become a citizen journalist and create, challenge and/or maintain discourse.

We decided to pick this website because same-sex couples and marriage has been a topic that each of us has encountered in the course of our sociology studies. The sociocultural relevance of gay marriage is a topic that commentators have argued the Irish Government has simply glossed over. With the proposed Civil Partnership Bill soon to take effect, we want to see what dominant discourses can be found on same-sex couples and gay marriage. We also want to see how this website challenges these discourses using the modes of colour, imagery and sound. We will also include analogies, in the form of screen shots as shown above to strengthen any evidence we include.

With journalists arguing that “with divorce and cohabiting both on the increase, it seems that the majority of Irish people aren't all that bothered about marriage” (Murphy 2008), we want to see how this website challenges the dominant discourses around gay marriage and same-sex couples, which we will shortly introduce.
But first we would like to briefly introduce our multimodal discourse analysis methodological framework. The framework that we have decided to use is based on the work of Kress and van Leeuwen. Their work focused on the “meaning potential” of color and typography (Machin 2007, p.296), as well as adopting the notion that visual images can be understood as “text” and “grammar” in their own right (QTP 2002, p.3). If language is never neutral, then by extension the hypothesis visual imagery cannot be neutral because it is in itself language would hold sway. The key aim of systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA) is to “capture the expansion of meaning which occurs when linguistic and visual forms combine” (O’Halloran 2008).

Using Kress and van Leeuwen’s (1996) model to understanding meaning through its three distinct categorizations (representational, interactional and compositional meanings), we plan to give an analysis of how color, imagery and sound may play a prominent role in challenging the dominant discourse which we will now outline. Please note that Kress and van Leeuwen’s approach will be used as a reference point and expanded upon in our analysis. Entwined with this approach will be reference to van Dijk’s work on ideology and discourse, should the analysis and findings require supported evidence.

Dominant discourse: The dominant discourses which we have identified are the negativity of gay marriage and same sex-couples, the preference of the nuclear family and marriage. We will briefly discuss how these are interpreted and used in the Irish media, etc. The negativity of gay marriage and same-sex couples focuses on the fact that same-sex couples cannot have children. An example where this is evident is from Murphy’s (2008) article entitled 'We just want to be recognised as a couple - the same as anyone else', in which difference is personified. David Quinn of the Iona Institute, which promotes marriage and religious practice, disputes the introduction of equal rights for same-sex couples and the right to marry on the grounds that "Same-sex relationships cannot produce children, and this is why it is not discrimination to treat heterosexual relationships differently from homosexual ones. They are treated differently because they are different”.

The use of the word “different” is used to negate why same-sex couples should be given equal status. Mr. Quinn later argues that to grant marriage to same-sex couples would be a “triumph of tolerance over reason”. With such a discourse focusing on what is shown as problematic, the article tries to maintain traditional catholic values and ethos. An article in the Irish Examiner by Buckley (2010) also distinguishes the difference of LGBT people. He uses a range of case studies to discuss being gay in the workplace and how people coped with being “different”.
The preference of the nuclear family is another discourse which prevails in Irish society. Under the Irish Constitution (1937) Article 41.1.1°: “The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society”. However, this article does not set out what family is swears to protect. Instead, this has been interpreted by the judges of Ireland, in the Supreme Court. An RTE (2009) article entitled: ‘Sperm donor granted access to child’ proves that this discourse is dominant.

“Ms Justice Susan Denham ruled there was no such institution as a 'de facto' family in Ireland and that the lesbian couple were not a family under the Constitution” (RTE 2009). This discourse of the family is relayed and portrayed as being what is desirable for society across various media in Ireland.

The dominant discourse of marriage focuses on the ‘union’ between a man and a woman. The constitution also tries to protect the institution of marriage where possible. David Quinn argues that marriage should take children into account. His argument and repeated discourse focuses on the “effect” same-sex marriage would have on the children, as well as the benefits of having “natural parents”, i.e. a mother and father (Murphy 2008). It is a discourse that others have not shielded away from-RTE (2009): “She also found that there was benefit to a child, in general, to have the society of his father”. The counter-hegemonic discourse, whereby same-sex couples argue that marriage is needed to protect their children should one partner die and the reasons, legal and otherwise, why they want to marry are largely ignored or masked with the prevalence of these dominant discourses.

3. A strong hypothesis/research question(s):

What modes, if any, can be used to create and/or maintain counter-hegemonic discourse?

We want to investigate the modes of colour, imagery, and sound, in light of how they formulate discourse. We want to see how they counter the dominant discourses that we previously introduced. Based on the notion that new media platforms are also language and grammar arenas (QTP 2002, p.3) we want to see how the lgbtNOISE website avails of these opportunities to express their views and challenge the discourses of difference, negativity, family and marriage.

4. An account of the discourses present and the evidence you have to support your claim:
In order to conduct our multimodal discourse analysis, we monitored the lgbtNOISE website at two selected intervals-Monday the 22nd of March and Friday the 25th of March to track the changes and note any change in attitude and/or discourses present. However, our findings found that there was no evident change over the five days in which we studied the website intensively.

As training journalists, one reason for this may be the newsworthiness of the content. News is not news if it is old. For it to be relevant it has to be new and impact on the lives of the target audience, in this case lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people in Ireland. Content is usually updated when it reflects these values, for example, if the Civil Partnership Bill had been passed during that week, content would almost certainly have reported this event.

We will now critically introduce the modes we have studied and how they related to the discourses present-did they accept or challenge certain viewpoints etc?
Colour: Colour as a mode of language may be used to represent certain moods and feelings, giving strength to what characteristics are more valued over what is reputed (QTS 2002, pp.6-7). Especially prevalent in the lgbtNOISE website are the colours: pink, blue, white (background), black background in photographs and slides. The colours vary from page to page with certain elements distinguishing themselves from the rest. The ‘gay rainbow’, for e.g. can be found in the top left hand corner. Here, the colours red, yellow and blue are clearly vivid. Martins (2009) suggests that this tri-colour flag acts as a symbol of recognition for the gay and lesbian community. The colours, he argues, represent light (red), sun (yellow) and art (blue). They have become accustomed in a global sphere and act as a form of identity among the large lgbt community in Ireland.

We also find that certain points are emphasized over others by way of colour. For example, headlines and the NOISE banner are decorated in black. According to Machin (2007, p.296) this acts as a source of power and strength, enticing the viewer to read this information which is given extra weighting and significance. This fits in with van Dijk’s observation that “We find that preferred, consistent or otherwise self-serving information will be emphasized, highlighted, focused upon, and made explicit” (1995, p.20).

Kress and van Leeuwen acknowledge that colours through how we prescribe association and enable features are collaborated to give meaning. This they argue is done through processes of brightness, saturation, purity, modulation, etc (Kress and van Leeuwen, cited in Machin 2007, p.296).

These features will not however be introduced in the mode of imagery, accompanying this section because we feel it is more important to link in our methodological framework, given the coherent and structured aim of this group project.

Run for Rights
23 March 2010
Noise urgently needs funding to cover the cost of our campaign. Any run is perfectly achievable for anyone with an ‘average’ fitness level, a decent pair of running shoes and the desire to make a real difference!

Examples of the colours used in the lgbtNOISE website. The website makes use of hypertext-highlighting words with links to stories as well as images used to access related topics (Stewart et al 2001, p.72). The design credentials of the website give rise to the colours black and white in every page. QTS (2002, p.7) offer us a western interpretation of these colours. Black suggests “inner strength and determination, as well as power and formality”, while white suggests purity and cleanliness. These colours converge to create a discourse of the oppressed and in doing so they counter the dominant discourse of being negative and “different”. The colour mode of this website creates a ‘unification’ function, where the lgbt members are united against those who oppress them (bigots, etc) and create their own arena in which to fight back (Thompson, cited in Devereux 2007a, p.153).

Note how the website treats media coverage on gay marriage and same sex-couples. The black and white colours are collectively used to emphasize what lgbtNOISE see as important, almost like a hierarchy of elements.

Imagery: Hence, from the analysis of the colour mode, we should expect images to create their own discourse, rallying to counter the discourses of marriage and family previously introduced. Using Kress and van Leeuwen’s Reading Images approach (1996), we analysed a series of images on the lgbtNOISE website.

Below: The image depicting the six fists represents the colours of the gay rainbow. Orange represents healing, green (calmness), lilac (the spirit) and black (AIDS awareness)-adapted from Martins (2009). We could also question the absence of black in the first image and the presence of white, which Martins says represents cleanliness and purity. Perhaps there is a more salient discourse at play, countering the stereotype of the gay couple having unsafe sex.

Each image, we believe acts as a narrative image and conceptual image. Narrative images deal with actions and events, according to (QTS 2002, p.3). On the flip side, conceptual images explain what things are like. They are in themselves a suggestion. The first image, for example portrayed 5000 marchers demonstrating for gay marriage. It not only told a story, but suggested that times are changing and perhaps now is the time for equal rights. The second image also tells a story and questions why Barry can’t marry Gary. It also raises a moral dilemma and the inequality and discrimination faced by lgbt members. The march for marriage image depicts the march for marriage as a sign of strength-members are showing their fists in a sign of triumph over adversity.

We would argue that these images are demand type images because they “explicitly acknowledges the viewer to influence the viewer in some way to enter into an imaginary relation with the represented participant” (QTS 2002, p.4). However, these images target the viewer to get involved in the march for marriage, which is a real acknowledgement and the disconcerted viewer, who may not want to publicly get involved, can still be a member of this virtual community.

Some of the images of people and fictional characters involve the person looking up and others on an equal level. Images which depict people looking upwards suggest that they are not in the position of power and/or equality, but the participant, i.e. the viewer is. On the other hand, those on an equal eye level pegging are on an equal platform with the participant (QTS 2002, p.5). The close angle shots represent a close intimate relationship with the viewer. It also serves in giving them a sense of power and involvement. They are placed in the top left corner because they aid information value, i.e. they are one of the first elements that the viewer will see and thus have a chance to intrigue the viewer.

The presence of text, black and white also links in with the colour modes to create a discourse which challenges negativity and urges equality. Moreover, the images represent an unjust world that needs to change and strives towards a discourse of positivity, rejecting the dominant values surrounding marriage and family.

The images vary in their modality, i.e. high or low reality value. For example the marcher’s image is high because it is real, whereas the Wizard of Oz image is low, because it is fictional. We believe that the Wizard of Oz image especially challenges the discourse of family and marriage because it presents the aims of the lgbt group. Dorothy is looking upwards, while the Tin Woodman looks at eye level, perhaps suggesting the theme of equality. The march of the central characters, who occur in single file and in numerous patterns suggests the march to gay marriage, and subtly the wickedness of the Wicked Witch of the East, which may represent those who oppose same-sex marriage, etc. The text (framing) accompanying the image reads: “Do your friends and family think you are equal? Now is their chance to prove it”. This image demands an action from the viewer. This not only creates a discourse of activity, but we believe it creates a discourse of togetherness and strength, which would override any attempt by dominant discourses to ‘fragment’ the group, i.e. defeat the group by breaking it into sub groups-gays, lesbians, transgendered and bisexual and creating inner conflict to take from their inherent aim (Thompson, cited in Devereux 2007a, p.154).

The above image also challenges the dominant discourse of family and marriage. Although, a low real value image, it still gets its point across. From analysing the colour black previously, this image makes use of strength and power. It creates a bond of love for children and argues that this is a family. It is a demand image because it epitomises the relationship and goal of the lgbt group. Having previously addressed the dominant nuclear family and marriage discourse as evident in RTE 2009 and Murphy 2008 articles, we see a very different portrayal of the family here. It is also ironic then that we find the same court ruling underneath this image. However, even before we open the link, we are presented with what is desirable and the attitude of the lgbt group. A counter-hegemonic discourse is clearly evident in this mode.

Sound: lgbtNOISE also makes use of sound to convey their preferred and counter-discourses for marriage and family. However, this was incorporated by means of audio-visual videos, which provided links to YouTube. Stewart et al (2001, p.111) suggest that video when combined with audio and sound commentary, they prove an effective means of transmitting information.

In particular, the sound aspect of these videos was used to offer commentary and to create a sense of place and mood. In “Sinead’s Hand” for example, we see a nervous man going around to different people asking for “Sinead’s hand in marriage please”. The use of background music helps shape the scene. The speakers chosen to voice their opinions are in themselves very interesting.

We are, in “Will you marry me”, introduced to a narrator, who talks about the government’s failure to introduce civil marriage and equality in Ireland. Over the course of the video, we are introduced to a lesbian couple who went to Canada to get married, feminist writer Nell McCafferty, protestors, MarriageEquality representatives, psychologists, etc in an attempt to formulate counter-discourse. Statements are greeted with applause, cheers, whistles and chants. The presence of music with the lyrics “people have the power”, “only want to be with you” and “Going to the chapel and we’re going to get married” all add to these discourses.

We hear examples of rhetoric, where speakers emphasize the “failure on the part of political leadership”. ‘We’-the lgbt group are fighting for ‘our’ right not ‘our’ gift. These videos are used to give “the users the impression of a speaker’s personality, a personality that adds to the user’s experience” (Stewart et al 2001, p.111). In effect, the speakers in the videos are purported to represent the majority of lgbt people in Ireland. The counter-discourses of same-sex marriage creating a new version and concept of marriage and the family is argued.

The speakers argue on the grounds of the Constitution, that nowhere is it specifically stated that marriage is between a man and a woman and the family is only accepted as the nuclear family. This mode in our opinion, serves in building upon the discourse of equality. We feel it to be one of the strongest modes we have encountered thus far. It also incorporated other modes, including video, images and text, for example the text which accompanied “Sinead’s Hand” read: “How would you feel if you had to ask 4 million people for permission to get married?” This rhetorical question builds on the major discourse of equality and even merges a discourse of shame and discrimination. We will now conclude by briefly linking our analysis with our approach to discourse analysis.

We found that the sound mode was key in challenging dominant discourses regarding parenting, the family and marriage. However, from an image point of view we see that they merge to strengthen their preferred position. Take the image above. This image challenges what was found in the RTE and Murphy articles, which stated the benefit of having natural parents, a mother and father. This picture challenges that belief and replaces it with an ideal type of a loving, nurturing same-sex couple.


5. A concluding paragraph that links your analysis back to your approach to discourse analysis:
It should be noted that our multimodal group project is in itself a limitation. We selected the modes which we as training journalists had some experience in dealing with from previous modules-Professional Skills for Journalists. We picked sound, colour and imagery on the basis that they are all inter-connected and work in tangent. An analysis of typography, language toolkit used-e.g-nominalization, intertextuality and page layout would also have been interesting. However, we decided to stick with these modes because we could provide a critical and detailed analysis of the discourses present. Thus, this research study should make use of the other available modes in order to interpret the effect they have in shaping discourse, i.e. fully answering our research question.

Nevertheless, we feel that we have fulfilled our research question by using our chosen modes in the best possible way. Using van Dijk's approach we were able to see what role various modes play in creating counter-discourse. We found that the new media platform (lgbtNOISE) was able to challenge the dominant discourses of marriage, family, negativity and difference by creating counter-discourses of positivity, equality, marriage, family and building minor discourses of togetherness and identity. Van Dijk’s (1995, p.32) statement that self-serving information will be emphasized while dispreferred information will be rubbished and disregarded was proven by our analysis.

The new media platform studied offered members a chance to view and create counter-discourse, or even accept dominant discourse. It fulfilled certain needs, according to Stewart et al (2001, pp 71-72), who stated that websites provide information, entertainment and emotional needs. We believe and we have proven that lgbtNOISE seized on the opportunity to challenge the dominant discourses of same-sex marriage and families portrayed in the Irish media arena and public sphere.

Our findings should however, not be taken at face value. The challenge remains, that they need to be transcended across other new media platforms, e.g. blogs, facebook, etc and to help regulate consistency and difference.

Bibliography

Buckley, D. (2010) ‘Gay People at Work’, Irish Examiner, 27 Mar, 12.

Cook, G. (2001) The Discourse of Advertising, 2nd ed., London: Routledge.

Devereux, E. (2007a) Understanding the Media, 2nd ed., London: Sage Publications.

Devereux, E. (2007b) Media Studies: Key Issues and Debates, London: Sage Publications.

Jensen, K.B. and Jankowski, N.W., eds. (1991) A Handbook of Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communication Research, London: Routledge.

Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (1996) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, London: Routledge.

LeVine, P. and Scollon, R. (2004) ‘Discourse and Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis, Volume 2002’ [online], available: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Ekl_4xQzohwC&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=LeVine,+P.+And+Scollon,+R.+(2004)+Discourse+and+Technology:+Multimodal+Discourse+Analysis&ots=TR79gPqmgH&sig=hFM0XfdoUV0Exe7XDAZwqBWg8H0#v=onepage&q&f=false [accessed 20 Mar 2010].

LGBT NOISE (2009) [online], available: http://lgbtnoise.ie/ [accessed between 22 Mar and 25 Mar 2010]. See Appendix for page links.

Machin, D. (2007) Introduction to Multimodal Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press.

Martins, A. (2009) ‘Gay Pride/Rainbow Flag’ [online], available: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/Flags/qq-rb.html [accessed 20 Mar 2010].

Murphy, A. (2008) ‘We just want to be recognised as a couple - the same as anyone else’, Irish Independent, 29 Aug, available: http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/we-just-want-to-be-recognised-as-a-couple--the-same-as-anyone-else-1465305.html [accessed 20 Mar 2010].

O’Halloran, K.L. (2008) ‘Systemic Functional-Multimodal Discourse Analysis’, Visual Communication, 7(4), available: http://vcj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/7/4/443 [accessed 20 Mar 2010].

O’Keeffe, A. (2006) Investigating Media Discourse, London: Routledge.

Philo, G. (2007) ‘Can Discourse Analysis Successfully explain the Content of Media and Journalistic Practice’, Journalism Studies, 8(2), 1-34.

QTP (2002) ‘An Introduction to the Grammar of Visual Design’ [online], available: http://portals.studentnet.edu.au/literacy/uploads/grammar.pdf [accessed 20 Mar 2010].

RTE (2009) ‘Sperm donor granted access to child’, 10 Dec, available: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1210/guardianship.html [accessed 15 Mar 2010].

Stewart, C., Lavelle, M. and Kowaltzke, A. (2001) Media and Meaning: an Introduction, London: BFI Publishing.

Van Dijk, T. (1995) ‘Discourse analysis as ideology analysis’, in Schaffer, C. and Wenden, A.L. (eds.) Language and Peace, Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing, 17-33.

Appendix

In order of appearance (screenshots)

http://lgbtnoise.ie/
http://lgbtnoise.ie/?p=1466
http://lgbtnoise.ie/?cat=9
http://lgbtnoise.ie/?page_id=1070
http://lgbtnoise.ie/?cat=16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLUxXP36ujo&feature=player_embedded#