Those who focus on the study of visual information continue to search for effective ways to conceptualize that inquiry. However, many visual examples are better categorized as visual/verbal collaboration, complicating analysis. When analysis is based on the assumption that visual and verbal modalities perform in similar ways, important complementary differences are overlooked. Therefore, this investigation presents a series of observations from a perspective rooted in difference, which leads to the argument that visual/verbal messages develop when cohesive and perceptual relationships form between image and text, resulting in four types of loose to tight visual/verbal collaboration. Examples of each can clarify, contradict, or challenge common understanding for a particular audience. Finally, a perspective in difference uncovers another kind of image/text collaboration, which instead of relying solely on actual images and text, depends on a weave of actual with imagined text and images, leading to an untapped rhetorical opportunity.
Agee, J., & Evans, W. (1941). Let us now praise famous men. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
2.
Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3.
Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye (Rev. ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
Arntson, A. E. (1993). Graphic design basics (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
5.
Atwan, R. (2005). Convergences: Message, method, medium (2nd ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.
6.
Barthes, R. (1977). Rhetoric of the image (S. Heath, Trans.). In R. Barthes, Image, music, text (pp. 32-51). New York: Hill & Wang.
7.
Bartholomae, D., & Petrosky, A. (2002). Ways of reading words and images. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
8.
Birdsell, D. S., & Groarke, L. (1996). Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33(1), 1-10.
9.
Blair, J. A. (2004). The rhetoric of visual arguments. In C. A. Hill & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 41-62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Bonsiepe, G. (1965). Visual/verbal rhetoric. Ulm, 14/15/16, 22-40.
11.
Buswell, G. T. (1935). How people look at pictures: A study of the psychology of perception in art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5-26.
13.
Drucker, J. (1994). The visible word: experimental typography and modern art, 1909-1923. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Eckkrammer, E. M. (2004). Drawing on theories of inter-semiotic layering to analyze multi-modality in medical self-counseling texts and hypertexts. In E. Ventola, C. Charles, & M. Kaltenbacher (Eds.), Perspectives on multimodality (pp. 211-226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15.
Ehses, H. H. J. (1989). Representing Macbeth: A case study in visual rhetoric. In V. Margolin (Ed.), Design discourse: History, theory, criticism (pp. 187-197). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Fahnestock, J. (2003). Verbal and visual parallelism. Written Communication, 20, 123-152.
17.
Faigley, L., George, D., Palchik, A., & Selfe, C. (2004). Picturing texts. New York: W. W. Norton.
18.
Fei, V. L. (2004). Problematising “semiotic resource.” In E. Ventola, C. Charles, & M. Kaltenbacher (Eds.), Perspectives on multimodality (pp. 51-62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
19.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1984). Images, plans, and prose. Written Communication, 1, 120-160.
20.
Goggins, M. D. (2004). Visual rhetoric in pens of steel and inks of silk: Challenging the great visual/verbal divide. In C. A. Hill & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 87-110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Gombrich, E. H. (1982). The visual image: Its place in communication. In E. H. Gombrich, The image and the eye: Further studies in the psychology of pictorial representation (pp. 137-161). Oxford, UK: Phaidon.
22.
Hagan, S. M. (2003). Visual/verbal meaning collaboration: A framework for the study of communication design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
23.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
24.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Continuum.
25.
Hopper, P. J., & Closs Traugott, E. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Jackendoff, R., & Landau, B. (1995). Spatial language and spatial cognition. In R. Jackendoff (Ed.), Languages of the mind: Essays on mental representation (pp. 99-124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
Kostelnick, C., & Hassett, M. (2003). Shaping information: The rhetoric of visual conventions. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
28.
Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York: Routledge.
29.
Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Oxford University Press.
30.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating the function of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows (Ed.), The psychology of illustration (pp. 51-85). New York: Springer-Verlag.
31.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Using illustrations to promote constructivist learning from science text. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 333-355). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
Meggs, P. B. (1992). Type & image: The language of graphic design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
33.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (1986). Iconology: Image, text, ideology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994). Picture theory: Essays on verbal and visual representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
Muntigl, P. (2004). Modelling multiple semiotic systems: The case of gesture and speech. In E. Ventola, C. Charles, & M. Kaltenbacher (Eds.), Perspectives on multimodality (pp. 31-50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
36.
Norton, D., & Stark, L. (1971). Eye movements and visual perception. Scientific American, 224, 34-43.
37.
Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
Plass, J. L., Chun, D., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 25-36.
40.
Radley, A. (1990). Artefacts, memory and a sense of the past. In D. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds.), Collective remembering: Inquiries in social construction (pp. 46-59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41.
Rand, P. (1940, December). Merry Christmas [Cover illustration]. Direction Magazine.
42.
Reitstaetter, J., Rheindorf, M., & van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Media discourse: Social Semiotics and the study of multimodal discourse. An interview with Theo van Leeuwen. Reconstruction, 5(2). Retrieved October 2, 2006, from http://reconstruction.eserver.org/052/vanleeuwen.shtml
43.
Schroeder, C. L., Fox, H., & Bizzell, P. (2002). ALT DIS: Alternative discourses and the academy. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
44.
Schwemer-Scheddin, Y. W. (1995). Josef Müller-Brockmann. Eye, 5, 10-16.
45.
Solso, R. L. (1994). Cognition and the visual arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46.
van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Typographic meaning. Visual Communication, 4(2), 137-143.
47.
Yarbus, A. L. (1967). Eye movements and vision (B. Haigh, Trans.). New York: Plenum.
