IDENTIFYING, CONSTRUING, AND BRIDGING OVER MEDIA BORDERS

Autores

  • Lars Elleström Linnaeus University Suécia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18305/scripta%20uniandra.v16i3.1162

Resumo

The article will center on the necessary but always problematic notion of media borders, which has since long been scrutinized by intermedial studies. My initial observation is that it is impossible to navigate in one’s material and mental surrounding if one does not categorize objects and phenomena; without categorizations everything would be a blur – difficult to grasp and to explain. However, categorization requires borders, and borders can and should always be disputed. The area of communication is not an exception: on one hand it is necessary to somehow categorize media into types, and on the other hand it is not evident how these categorizations should be made. My aim is not to argue in favor of or against certain ways of classifying communicative media, but to try to explain some of the functions and limitations of media borders. I argue, in brief, that there are different types of media borders and hence different types of media types; if these differences are not recognized, the understanding of media categorization will remain confused. Whereas some media borders are relatively stable, others are more subject to change; therefore, media borders can be understood to be both identified and construed. However, in the end virtually all media borders can be bridged over through our cross-modal cognitive capacities.

Keywords: media borders, media types, categorization, intermediality, multimodality, cross-modality, iconicity.

Referências

Anderson, E. R. 1998. A Grammar of Iconism. Madison/Teaneck: Farleigh Dickinson University Press.

Elleström, L. 2010. “The modalities of media: A model for understanding intermedial relations”. In Media Borders, Multimodality and Intermediality, ed. L. Elleström, 11–48. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Elleström, L. 2014a. “Material and mental representation: Peirce adapted to the study of media and arts”. The American Journal of Semiotics 30: 83–138.

Elleström, L. 2014b. Media Transformation: The Transfer of Media Characteristics among Media. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Elleström, L. 2017. “Bridging the gap between image and metaphor through cross-modal iconicity: An interdisciplinary model”. In Dimensions of Iconicity: Iconicity in Language and Literature 15, ed. A. Zirker, M. Bauer, O. Fischer, and C. Ljungberg, 167–190. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Elleström, L. 2018. “Modelling human communication: Mediality and semiotics”. In Meanings & Co.: The Interdisciplinarity of Communication, Semiotics and Multimodality, ed. A. Olteanu, A. Stables, and D. Borţun, 7–32. Cham: Springer.

Köhler, W. 1929. Gestalt Psychology. New York: Horace Liveright.

Kress, G. and T. van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Hodder Arnold.

McLuhan, M. 1994 [1964]. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.

Mitchell, W. J. T. 2005. “There are no visual media”. Journal of Visual Culture 4: 257–266.

Odbert, H. S., T. F. Karwoski, and A. B. Eckerson. 1942. “Studies in synesthetic thinking: I. Musical and verbal associations of color and mood”. Journal of General Psychology 26: 153–173.

Peirce, C. S. 1932. The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 2, ed. C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rajewsky, I. O. 2010. “Border talks: The problematic status of media borders in the current debate about intermediality”. In Media Borders, Multimodality and Intermediality, ed. L. Elleström, 51–68. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Spence, C. 2011. “Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review”. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 73: 971–995.

Wolf, W. 1999. The Musicalization of Fiction: A Study in the Theory and History of Intermediality. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.

DOI: 10.5935/1679-5520.20180043

Downloads

Publicado

2018-11-11