Luận văn thạc sĩ a contrastive analysis of interpersonal meaning in american and vietnamese caricatures from multi modal perspective

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
QUY NHON UNIVERSITY

HUỲNH THỊ DIỄM NHƯ

A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF
INTERPERSONAL MEANING IN AMERICAN AND
VIETNAMESE CARICATURES FROM MULTIMODAL PERSPECTIVE

Field:

English Linguistics

Code:

8 22 02 01

Supervisor: Võ Duy Đức, Ph.D.

e


BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUY NHƠN

HUỲNH THỊ DIỄM NHƯ

PHÂN TÍCH ĐỐI CHIẾU NÉT NGHĨA LIÊN
NHÂN TRONG TRANH BIẾM HỌA MỸ VÀ VIỆT
NAM TỪ GĨC NHÌN ĐA PHƯƠNG THỨC

Chuyên ngành:
Mã số:

Ngôn ngữ Anh
8220201

Người hướng dẫn: TS. Võ Duy Đức

e


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I hereby declare that this thesis “A contrastive analysis of
Interpersonal meaning in American and Vietnamese caricatures from
multi-modal perspective” is my own work. All references and extracts have
been distinguished by quotation marks and all resources of information have
been specifically acknowledged. I further certify that I have not submitted this
thesis at any other institution in order to obtain a degree.
Binh Dinh, 2019

HUỲNH THỊ DIỄM NHƯ

e


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

With the great help of my supervisor and all the lecturers of the course,
this thesis has been possible to complete on time.

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my
supervisor Dr. Võ Duy Đức for his patience, encouragement, and immense
knowledge, and for valuable materials of a very new linguistic field and for
the time he spent reading my drafts and for his precious comments. Without
his great experience and support, this thesis could not be done. He also
inspired me to choose the topic for my research.
My thanks particularly go to the lecturers who have been provided me
with important knowledge and foundation for this thesis.
I am also grateful for source of materials and helpful suggestions on
visual analysis in my thesis of Dr. Peter. R. R. White.
Also, my sincere appreciation goes to the Head of Foreign Language
Department, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Quang Ngoạn for giving me the best
infrastructures and materials for following this course of M.A. degree in
English Linguistics as well as the most convenient time for doing this thesis.
I am deeply grateful to my colleagues and close friends for sharing me
helpful materials, experiences and necessary sources of information about the
study.
Last but not least, my great gratitude is devoted to my family,
especially my mother. They have helped me overcome a lot of difficulties
about the fee as well as the time in order to complete this thesis smoothly.

e


ASTRACT

This study mainly investigates visual and verbal meanings in American
and Vietnamese caricatures based on the frameworks of Visual Grammar by
Kress and van Leeuwen (2006) and Appraisal Theory by White and Martin
(2005). Fifty American and Vietnamese caricatures were collected to explore

prominent visual and attitudinal features in terms of visual and attitudinal
meaning. The findings indicate that in Interactive meaning, Offer Gaze
between the viewers and the participants is the dominant type, Long shot is
the most frequent choice, and Frontal angle and High angle are mostly used in
American and Vietnamese caricatures. Moreover, in exploration of Attitudinal
meaning in caricatures, Appreciation was found to be used with the highest
percentage. The caricaturists in both languages seem to express their feelings
and their evaluation about the people and the current society. Besides the
similarities, some differences were observed in the two data sources. One
difference between them is that Vietnamese caricaturists tend to use implicit
assessments more than American ones. Based on the results of data analysis,
some implications and suggestions for further research were drawn out.

e


TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ASTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1
1.1. Rationale ............................................................................................. 1
1.2. Significance of the study..................................................................... 2
1.3. Aims and objectives ............................................................................ 3
1.3.1. Aims .......................................................................................... 3

1.3.2. Objectives ................................................................................. 3
1.4. Research questions .............................................................................. 3
1.5. Scope of the study ............................................................................... 4
1.6. Organization of the study .................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................... 6
2.1. Caricatures .......................................................................................... 6
2.2. Grammar of Visual Design ................................................................. 7
2.2.1. Representational meaning ......................................................... 8
2.2.2. Interactive meaning .................................................................. 9
2.2.2.1. Contact......................................................................... 10
2.2.2.2. Social distance ............................................................. 11
2.2.2.3. Attitude ........................................................................ 12
2.2.3. Compositional meaning .......................................................... 15
2.3. Appraisal ........................................................................................... 16

e


2.3.1. Attitude ................................................................................... 17
2.3.1.1. Affect ........................................................................... 18
2.3.1.2. Judgement.................................................................... 22
2.3.1.3. Appreciation ................................................................ 26
2.3.2. Engagement ............................................................................ 29
2.3.3. Graduation .............................................................................. 29
2.4. Previous studies ................................................................................ 30
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 34
3.1. Research methods ............................................................................. 34
3.2. Data collection .................................................................................. 35
3.3. Data analysis ..................................................................................... 35
3.4. Procedures ......................................................................................... 36

3.5. Validity and Reliability ..................................................................... 37
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ...................................... 38
4.1. Findings of Interactive meaning ....................................................... 38
4.1.1. Contact .................................................................................... 38
4.1.2. Social distance ........................................................................ 40
4.1.2.1. Social distance in American caricatures ..................... 41
4.1.2.2. Social distance in Vietnamese caricatures .................. 43
4.1.2.3. A comparison of Social distance in American and
Vietnamese caricatures ......................................................................... 45
4.1.3. Attitude ................................................................................... 46
4.1.3.1. Horizontal angle in American caricatures ................... 47
4.1.3.2. Horizontal angle in Vietnamese caricatures ................ 49
4.1.3.3. A comparison of Horizontal angle in American and
Vietnamese caricatures ......................................................................... 51
4.1.3.4. Vertical angle in American caricatures ....................... 52
4.1.3.5. Vertical angle in Vietnamese caricatures .................... 53

e


4.1.3.6. A comparison of Vertical angle in American and
Vietnamese caricatures ......................................................................... 55
4.2. Findings of Attitudinal values........................................................... 57
4.2.1. Attitudinal values in the American caricatures ...................... 57
4.2.1.1. Affect ........................................................................... 58
4.2.1.2. Judgement.................................................................... 61
4.2.1.3. Appreciation ................................................................ 65
4.2.2. Attitudinal values in Vietnamese caricatures ......................... 68
4.2.2.1. Affect ........................................................................... 69
4.2.2.2. Judgement.................................................................... 73

4.2.2.3. Appreciation ................................................................ 76
4.2.3. A comparison of Attiudinal values in American and
Vietnamese caricatures ....................................................................... 79
4.3. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 81
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ........................ 82
5.1. Conclusions ....................................................................................... 82
5.2. Implications....................................................................................... 84
5.3. Limitations of the study .................................................................... 85
5.4. Suggestions for further study ............................................................ 85
REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 86
APPENDIX ................................................................................................... xiii

e


ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS

(a) Abbreciations
Auth

Authorial

AC

American caricatures

Cap

Capacity

Comp

Composition

Dissat

Dissatisfaction

Hap

Happiness

Insec

Insecurity

Non-Auth

Non-Authorial

Nor

Normality

Prop

Propriety

React

Reaction

Sat

Satisfaction

Sec

Security

SFG

Systemic Functional Grammar

SFL

Systemic Functional Linguistics

Ten

Tenacity

Unhapp

Unhappiness

Val

Valuation

VC

Vietnamese caricatures

Ver

Veracity

(b) Conventions
AC (1-25): American caricatures numbered from 1 to 25. (Details in
Appendix A)

e


VC (1-25): Vietnamese caricatures numbered from 1-25. (Details in
Appendix A)
- Boldface is used to mark the first use of technical terms.
- Italic words are used for examples, and emphasis.
- Underlined words are used to mark the use of what is being
demonstrated.
- Plus (+) in examples are used to identify positive values.
- Minor (-) in examples are used to identify negative values.

e


LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1.Realizations of types of interactional meanings ............................. 14

Table 2.2.The system of Affect (White & Martin, 2005, p. 51) ..................... 19
Table 2.3.The system of Judgement of Social Esteem (White & Martin, 2005,
p. 53) ............................................................................................... 23
Table 2.4.The system of Judgement of Social Sanction ................................. 24
Table 2.5.The system of Appreciation (White & Martin, 2005, p. 56) .......... 26

Table 4.1. Frame size in American caricatures ............................................... 41
Table 4.2. Frame size in the Vietnamese caricatures ...................................... 43
Table 4.3. Frequency of Vertical angle in American caricatures ................... 52
Table 4.4. Frequency of Vertical angle in Vietnamese caricatures ................ 53
Table 4.5. Distribution of Judgement values in American caricatures ........... 64
Table 4.6. Distribution of Judgement values in Vietnamese caricatures ........ 75

e


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Main types of visual representational structure (Kress & van
Leeuwen, 2006, p. 59) .................................................................. 9
Figure 2.2. Interactive meaning in images (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, p.
149) ............................................................................................. 10
Figure 2.3. Contact of Offer (VC7)................................................................. 11
Figure 2.4. Picture taken from very Long shot (AC13) .................................. 12
Figure 2.5. Oblique angle (VC15) .................................................................. 13
Figure 2.6. High angle (VC4) ......................................................................... 14
Figure 2.7. An overview of Appraisal resources (White & Martin, 2005) ..... 17
Figure 2.8. Example of Un/happiness Affect (AC14) .................................... 20
Figure 2.9. Example of In/security Affect (VC8) ........................................... 21
Figure 2.10. Example of Dis/satisfaction Affect (AC2) ................................. 22

Figure 2.11. Example of Judgement (VC9) .................................................... 25
Figure 2. 12. Example of Implicit Judgement (AC12) ................................... 25
Figure 2. 13. Example of Appreciation (VC15) ............................................. 28

Figure 4.1. AC5 ............................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.2. VC3 ............................................................................................... 40
Figure 4.3. AC9 ............................................................................................... 40
Figure 4.4. AC10 ............................................................................................. 42
Figure 4.5. AC15 ............................................................................................. 42
Figure 4.6. AC1 ............................................................................................... 42
Figure 4.7. VC4 ............................................................................................... 44
Figure 4.8. VC6 ............................................................................................... 44

e


Figure 4.9. Frequency of Social distance in American and Vietnamese
caricatures ................................................................................... 45
Figure 4.10. Frequency of Horizontal angle in American caricatures............ 47
Figure 4.11. AC3 ............................................................................................. 48
Figure 4.12. AC4 ............................................................................................. 49
Figure 4.13. Frequency of Horizontal angle in Vietnamese caricatures ........ 50
Figure 4.14. VC20 ........................................................................................... 50
Figure 4.15. VC19 ........................................................................................... 51
Figure 4.16. Horizontal angle distribution in American and Vietnamese
caricatures ................................................................................... 51
Figure 4.17. VC13 ........................................................................................... 54
Figure 4.18. VC22 ........................................................................................... 54
Figure 4.19. VC12 ........................................................................................... 55
Figure 4.20. Frequency of Vertical angle in American and Vietnamese

caricatures ................................................................................... 56
Figure 4.21. Distribution of Attitudinal values in American caricatures ....... 57
Figure 4.22. Authorial and Non-authorial Affect values in American
caricatures ................................................................................... 58
Figure 4.23. Distribution of Affectual values in American caricatures.......... 59
Figure 4.24. Distribution of positive and negative Judgement in American
caricatures ................................................................................... 62
Figure 4.25. Distribution of explicit and implicit Judgement in American
caricatures ................................................................................... 63
Figure 4.26. Positive and Negative Appreciation in American caricatures.... 65
Figure 4.27. Sub-types of Appreciation in American caricatures .................. 66
Figure 4.28. Distribution of Attitudinal values in Vietnamese caricatures .... 69

e


Figure 4.29. Authorial and Non-authorial Affect values in Vietnamese
caricatures ................................................................................... 70
Figure 4.30. Distribution of Affectual values in Vietnamese caricatures ...... 71
Figure 4.31. Distribution of positive and negative Judgement in Vietnamese
caricatures ................................................................................... 73
Figure 4.32. Distribution of explicit and implicit Judgement in Vietnamese
caricatures ................................................................................... 74
Figure 4.33. Positive and Negative Appreciation in Vietnamese caricatures 76
Figure 4.34. Sub-types of Appreciation in Vietnamese caricatures ............... 77
Figure 4.35. Attitudinal values in American and Vietnamese caricatures ..... 79

e

1

CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION

1.1.

Rationale

Nowadays, image, color, sound and action symbol which have been
considered as a tool play an essential role in modern communication.
Actually, through arts in general, caricatures in particular, the information is
transmitted into “channel” to connect everyone in the world. It can be argued
that caricatures bring a mass of benefits in both education and entertainment.
According to Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, that means they make fun
because they are created by “a funny drawing or picture of somebody that
exaggerates some of their features”. Additionally, caricatures can be found in
textbooks like History, Literature, or even Geography. Also, the most
important thing is that the feelings, beliefs, and values via caricatures strongly
have significant moral lessons. Moreover, the issues of modern society are
being concerned strongly. Henceforth, Kress and van Leeuwen (2006)
developed a grammar of visual design largely inspired by Halliday (1994)’s
functional grammar. Kress and Leeuwen (2006, as cited in Hart 2014, p. 11)
state “meanings belong to culture rather than specific semiotic modes and,
although realized quite differently, many of the same meaning potentials may
find expression in both linguistic and visual discourse”. Furthermore, the
framework of White and Martin (2005)’s Appraisal Theory is suggested for
investigation the verbal meanings; therefore, provides a particularly useful
and appropriate grammatical tool for analyzing aspects of evaluation. Having
an overall view on Appraisal Theory and Visual Grammar will enable us to

know more about arts discourse in general and caricatures in particular. A

e


2

small amount of language is utilized to

partially identify more

comprehensibly the idea of the images. According to Brown and Yule (1983,
p. 1), language is a system for expression of meaning: “primary function
being interaction and communication”. It is believed that the language used in
caricatures is considered as a means of comprehension, an aid. Moreover,
caricatures in different countries have different cultural and social contexts.
As a result, it is extremely obvious that the research on both American and
Vietnamese caricatures leads to the difference. What’s more, as a subcategory of caricatures, social caricatures bring us a tremendously sharp view
of modern society. It is not surprising that a lot of linguistic studies are
concerned with evaluation the meanings and the language in images. For
instances, Economou (2009)’s study investigated verbal-visual news media
texts basing on social semiotic theory, critical discourse analysis and
Systemic Functional theory. Chen (2009) carried out a study on how
linguistics and visual semiotics resources are used to convey Interpersonal
meaning in multimodal textbooks. However, to my best knowledge, no
research has been done on American and Vietnamese caricatures with the
employment of Visual Grammar and Appraisal Theory as a theoretical
framework. For these reasons, it is essential to conduct the thesis “A
contrastive analysis of Interpersonal meaning in American and Vietnamese
caricatures from multi-modal perspective”.

1.2.

Significance of the study

Analyzing American and Vietnamese caricatures has an important role
not only to linguistic learners studying how language works with images
together and its effects but to artists who would like readers to get a precise
observation of contemporary life. The findings of the study will present an
analysis of the evaluative meanings in terms of attitude in caricatures as well

e


3

as visual analysis. It will offer a detailed description of the attitudinal features
of caricatures, contribute to answer the question of how to achieve the
effectiveness of caricatures to readers. Moreover, the contrastive analysis of
visual and evaluative meanings in American and Vietnamese caricatures is
hoped to be useful for learning as well as teaching the Amerian and
Vietnamese culture and serving as a reference for researchers who are
interested in evaluating visual and verbal meanings in images.
1.3.

Aims and objectives

1.3.1. Aims
This thesis is carried out to investigate Interpersonal meaning in
American and Vietnamese caricatures. Moreover, the final goal is to explain
the similarities and differences between American and Vietnamese caricatures

from multi-modal perspective.
1.3.2. Objectives
The objectives of the study are to:
- identify the visually interactive and verbally evaluative meanings
operating in American and Vietnamese caricatures based on Grammar
of Visual Design by Kress and van Leeuwen (2006) and White and
Martin (2005)’s Appraisal Theory.
- point out the similarities and differences between American and
Vietnamese caricatures in terms of how Visual and Attitudinal
resources are used in the light of Visual Grammar and Appraisal
Theory.
1.4.

Research questions

To achieve this aim, the following research questions are raised:

e


4

1. How do the images in American and Vietnamese caricatures carry
Interactive meanings?
2. What are the sub-types of Attitude used in American and Vietnamese
caricatures and how frequently are they used?
3. What are the similarities and differences between American and
Vietnamese caricatures from multi-modal perspective?
1.5.

Scope of the study

In this research, I particularly focus on the multi-modal meanings
conveyed in American and Vietnamese caricatures. With Visual Grammar,
there are three modes of meaning: Representational, Interactional, and
Compositional; however, due to lack of time, space as well as relevant
materials, the study just focused on Interactive meanings. In the same way,
Appraisal Theory has three main types: Attitude, Engagement, and
Graduation but only Attitude is under the investigation.
1.6.

Organization of the study

The study is organized into five chapters as follows:
Chapter 1, Introduction, contains the rationale, aims, and objectives,
research questions, the significance of the study, the scope of the study and
the organization of the paper.
Chapter 2, Literature review, presents Caricatures, Visual Grammar,
Appraisal Theory, then the previous studies related to the features of these
theories are given.
Chapter 3, Methods and Procedures, mentions research methods, the
data collection, and the data analysis. Besides, reliability and validity of the
data are addressed in this chapter.
Chapter 4, Findings and Discussions, focuses on the results of the data

e


5

analysis to find out how images in American and Vietnamese caricatures
convey Visual meanings and Attitudinal meanings. The discussion based on
the research results is also made.
Chapter 5, Conclusions and Implications, summarizes the main
findings of the study which satisfy the research questions, draws conclusions
and pedagogical implications, limitations, and puts forward suggestions for
further studies.

e


6

CHAPTER 2:
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.

Caricatures

According to Ames (1998), the word "caricature" is derived from the
Italian word "caricatare" or "carcate" which means "exaggerate". A caricature
is defined in Oxford dictionary as “a funny drawing or picture of somebody
that exaggerates some of their features”. It means that through pictures the
artists would like to display precisely the facts of the social life. According to
Perkins (1975), “A symbol referring to an individual and relative to a given
scale, norm, and population is a caricature just when the scale and norm
relative to the population are individuating and the symbol relative to the
individual scale and norm exaggerates” (Perkins, 1975, p. 7). Actually, this
symbol is a caricature. He also identified a caricature by some keywords

“individuation” and “exaggeration”, “humor”, “idealization”, “defects”, and
“personality”. It can be seen that now the definition may be tried on a fresh
domain, the cluster of problems surrounding the use of animal-like figures in
caricatures and cartoons. The accurate reflection of the nature of special
situations in the form of pictures is brief, concise as well as there is the
biggest influence; therefore, the caricature is considered as an extremely
essential part of the indigenous literature on the political and social history of
human beings. With the great powers, at the end of the nineteenth century and
the beginning of the twentieth century, the caricature was introduced in
schools in developed countries like England, Germany, USA, Australia, etc.
Caricatures are not only beneficial to entertainment but also important to
education. Caricatures play an influential social and political role. Caricatures

e


7

can illustrate the sufferings of citizens by tackling the issues of society,
analyzing economic problems, and analyzing problems (Hafiz, 2006).
Caricatures have been widely used as a modern teaching tool in social studies.
In the past, caricatures often reflected politics truly but today they also
indicate the negative aspects of modern life. There are not many researches
studying deeply caricatures because of barriers of society. Ibrahim (2014)
investigated the use of caricature in Iraqi Media, which bases on Grice's
maxims to find out whether these maxims are obeyed or not, and the sociopragmatic factors governing language use or choice derived from the social
situational context surrounding each caricature. In Vietnam, Nguyễn Khắc
Huy (2015) carried out a study about the process of formation and
development of caricatures in Vietnamese newspapers and then he gave some
suggestions to effectively exploit the power of caricatures for the press,

especially the type of print. This study mainly investigates the caricatures
representing the issue of society.
This study focused on the meaning of visual and evaluative language in
American and Vietnamese caricatures via the use of Visual Grammar by
Kress and van Leeuwen (2006) and Appraisal Theory by White and Martin
(2005) as the theoretical framework. The following sections will present these
frameworks.
2.2.

Grammar of Visual Design

According to Halliday (1994), Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is
a theory of language which focuses on analyzing structure, meaning, and the
purpose of language. Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) stated that Systemic
Functional Grammar (SFG) attempts to explain and describe the organization
of “meaning-making resources”. Basing on SFL, Kress and van Leeuwen
(2006) suggested that meaning of images can be expressed “through the

e


8

choice between different uses of color or different compositional structures”
(Kress & Leeuwen, 2006, p. 2). According to Kress and Leeuwen (2006),
“Analysing visual communication is, or should be, an important part of the
“critical” disciplines” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 14). Because of its
essence, the Visual Grammar is obviously utilized to find out how language is
expressed in social interaction and how it emerges with images in
newspapers, magazines, reports, government publications, or even in

textbooks. Kress and van Leeuwen (2006)’s theory describes the combination
of components into meaningful wholes by dealing with a system of three
metafunctions. They are called differently: Representation, Interaction, and
Composition. The sections that follow discuss the three modes of meaning in
detail with a focus on Interactive meaning as it is the theoretical framework of
the study.
2.2.1. Representational meaning
Visual Grammar introduces Representational meaning which functions
well in visual mode. "Any semiotic mode has to be able to represent aspects
of the world as it is experienced by humans. In other words, it has to be able
to represent objects and their relation in a world outside the representational
system" (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 42). Representational meaning
refers to how semiotic system display objects or elements called
“participants”. Every semiotic includes two main types of participants:
represented participants (people, things, and places depicted in an image) and
interactive participants (people who communicate with each other through
images including image producers and viewers). Kress and van Leeuwen
(2006) stated that Representational meaning is classified into two categories:
Narrative representation and Conceptual representation.

e


9

Narrative
Representational
structures
Conceptual

Classificatory
Analytic
Symbolical
al

Figure 2.1. Main types of visual representational structure (Kress & van Leeuwen,
2006, p. 59)

2.2.2. Interactive meaning
Up to this point, this review has discussed Kress and van Leeuwen’s
description of the ways that various kinds of visuals organize and represent
their meanings representationally (Ideational). This section deals with a
discussion of the ways that visuals attempt to address their potential viewers
in Interactional (Interactive) terms in their Visual Grammar. In their
discussion of Interactive meaning in their Visual Grammar, Kress and van
Leeuwen (2006) recognized that visual forms of communication also utilize
resources which both constitute and maintain interaction between the
producer(s) and viewer(s) of a visual. In this meaning, Kress and van
Leeuwen (2006) stated that images involve two kinds of participants,
represented participants (the people, the places and things depicted in images)
and interactive participants (the people who communicate with each other
through images, the producers and viewers of images). Three main systems
consisting of Contact, Social distance, and Attitude are presented below.

e


10

Demand

Contact
Offer
Intimate/ personal
Social
distance

Social
Public

Interactive
meaning

Subjectivity

Involvement
Detachment
Viewer power
Equality
Representation
power
Action orientation

Attitude

Objectivity
Knowledge orientation
Figure 2.2. Interactive meaning in images (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 149)

2.2.2.1. Contact
The first variable of the interactive meaning structure is Contact, the

site where the represented participants set their gaze. According to Kress and
van Leeuwen (2006), the two values attributed to this variable are Demand
and Offer. When the eyes of a represented participant(s) directly meet(s) those
of the viewers, the image is described as a Demand, where the Demand image
is assumed to ask the reader to have a virtual relation with the represented
participant (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 123). In contrast to the Demand
image, when a represented participant does not look at the viewer, the

e


11

interaction between the viewer and the depicted person is indirect or does not
occur, and the image is called an Offer.

Figure 2.3. Contact of Offer (VC7)

The image in Figure 2.3 shows a Contact of Offer in which the
represented participant does not look directly at the viewer. The old woman is
looking at the fruit in the tree.
2.2.2.2. Social distance
Kress and van Leeuwen (2006, p. 124) suggested that the size of the frame
option through the Close, Medium or Long shot is said to express the social
distance between the represented participant and the viewers. In images, the
relation between the represented participant and the audience is imaginary and a
shot can convey a Personal, Social or Public distance. According to Kress and
van Leeuwen (2006), as cited in Hall (1966), there are different meanings of the
size of the shot: a “very close” image that shows the head or face of a person
suggests an “intimate distance”, a “close image” through which a person is

represented by her/his head and shoulder conveys a “close personal distance”,
whereas a “far personal distance” is communicated through a “medium close”
image that shows a person up to the waist. “Close social distance” is conveyed

e