Visual Communication Online

 The link to my scholarly article can be found here and here

Social semiotics is the study of sign making, and how humans create and assign meaning to different forms of expression through visual and aural imagery. The term was coined by Gunther Kress, an esteemed linguist who is noted as being one of the leading academics of the 21st century. Social Semiotics posits that humans are able to express meaning through multiple different channels, and that the meaning of signs and expression created at one time may change as time progresses, or as a social setting changes.

Social semiotics describes different ways of analyzing media. For the purpose of this assignment, I'll discuss how social semiotics can be applied to visual media. The top of an image is usually analyzed as being an ideal for the viewer, in other words, it represents some of the main ideas that an image is trying to convey. The center and bottom of an image act as both a binding compositional agent, and also a tool that grounds an image in reality, giving the viewer elements they are more familiar with. The left of an image is usually more open and empty providing details about the image, but nothing exciting, while the right has something new and exciting, and more entrancing, but less essential.

Image 1

This image is a plant catalog page. If we analyze each of these frames as its own image, analysis is as follows. The center of the page shows the most color and flowers, the bottom provides important, realistic descriptions of the trees. The top gives a more philosophical and idealistic description of the trees. The left simply showcases the trees, but is not very information dense, whereas the right shows many different varieties and allows the viewer's mind to wander and debate. This image is highly enticing and can be understood as an advertisement that uses effective structure and organization

Image 2

This image shows an NBA player taking a shot. The top of the image shows a glowing basketball and the player's hands. This is clearly indicative of a message of magic, or power that comes along with buying Nike equipment. The center and bottom of the image don't serve much purpose besides holding the frame together. The left side of the image is empty as well, with the right side having the basketball player, a more flashy and information dense compositional element. Overall, the bold text in the image and the contrasting, bright colors, plus the magic energy coming from the ball indicate that wearing nike clothing empowers an individual with an identity that is unique to athletes and powerful figures.

Online Arguments

I will be analyzing this reddit thread arguing about veganism.

1. Why did you choose this online argument for your assignment?

I chose this example because veganism is an especially contested subject. Many people get into heated arguments about veganism both online and in person. I figured this argument would be a good would to analyze for emotive language, and to weigh out the arguments of each side logically.

1. Provide three negative examples and concerns you have with this online argument.

One immediate concern I noticed is the bluntness of this argument. "Honestly, the whole "You're either 100% vegan or you're evil" thing is kinda bullshit.". This may stem from the fact that online discussion boards are very laid back and don't use the same lingo as an in person discussion. Still, I feel the language used to be harsh and unhelpful

A second negative aspect I noticed is that a percentage of commenters seem to not be interested in responding to the original prompt, and let their egos creep into the conversation. "At the risk of giving advice, I think you ask for too much advice. I did not ask for, nor do I appreciate, nor do I accept advice on that kind of choice. I can make my own decisions about what I eat thank you very much, and so should you." Similar to the first example, this is definitely not helpful and promotes some hostility.

A third negative element are comments made that might not be negative, but certainly unhelpful. "eat what you want dude. You only live once". These comments serve no real purpose other than to confuse readers and make any sort of consensus more difficult to reach. I find it unlikely that anyone would make these comments in a real-world argument.

1. Create five rules for how people should argue online correctly.

• Have basic respect and decency
• Focus on the original prompt
• Be considerate, limit your own ego
• Focus on solving an issue and reaching consensus, not winning an argument.
• Ignore trolling and unhelpful comments.

I think with these rules considered, online arguments can actually be productive and have a useful application on subjects that are polarized like veganism.

Toulmin Method

 The Toulmin Method is a very useful concept to consider when negotiating the landscape of online communication. We often find ourselves lost in arguments online, or in the case that we hear of others in arguments online, we may not even know what an argument is about. In these scenarios, the Toulmin Method is a great way of taking a step back, and approach an argument with a more rational outlook. I find that the best first steps for analyzing an online argument are to only consider the three beginning steps of the Toulmin method: the claim, grounds and warrant. In the simplest language, the claim is an assertion that an author makes in an argument, the backing is the information necessary to understand the claim, and the warrant is the information that links the claim and backing together. Once you have identified each of these components in an online argument, you should have a pretty good idea of the substance of the argument itself. The data, qualifier's and rebuttal are the final three parts of the method, and are important for understanding the overall complexities of the argument, and which conclusions different parties reach based on differing opinions.

A great example of an online debate where the Toulmin Method could be useful is the conversation on cancel culture. It is important to establish the background on cancel culture and which different people may make claims regarding its necessity or uselessness. Likewise, it is also important to consider data, and rebuttals to each argument in order to understand the nuances of the conversation. The Toulmin method is essential for breaking down conversations that are more complicated than a simple yes or no, or where there is no definitive answer like in the case of cancel culture. One negative aspect of this method to online communication is that arguments online are often influenced by fake information or "trolling". In these cases, an analytical method will fail because the information provided doesn't actually make any sense. Individuals must consider this and learn to be skeptical online and flexible with their use of the model. Critical thinking is also essential in these cases because it will allow readers of online content to ponder which information is necessary to add the Toulmin Method, and which can be disregarded because it is not as important to the bigger picture of the argument.