Salience or visibility of science-related issues can be strategically projected by means of linguistic and visual resources. This article presents a methodology for examining the relations between the textual properties of popular science discourse and the visual features of accompanying images. The advantages of this approach are demonstrated through a multimodal analysis of a sample of biomedical articles from New Scientist, which reveals the frequency and distribution of selected properties of visual images, typical aspects of layout, attributed functions of the images, and their relation to the text. Humanization, domestication, and aesthetization are dominant discursive strategies of popularity-driven science journalism.
DahlgrenP. (1992). Introduction. In DahlgrenP.SparksC. (Eds.), Journalism and popular culture (pp. 1-23). London, England: Sage.
11.
EldridgeJ. (Ed.). (1995). Glasgow Media Group Reader: Vol. 1. News content, language, and visuals. New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
El RefaieE. (2003). Understanding visual metaphor: The example of newspaper cartoons. Visual Communication, 2, 75-96.
13.
FahnestockJ. (1993). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. In McRaeM. W. (Ed.), The literature of science (pp. 17-36). Athens: University of Georgia Press.
14.
ForcevilleC. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
GioraR. (1999). On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 919-929.
16.
GruberD.DickersonJ. (2012). Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 938-948.
17.
HarcupT.O’NeillD. (2001). What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism Studies, 2, 269-280.
18.
JensenE. (2012). Scientific sensationalism in American and British press coverage of therapeutic cloning. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 40-54.
19.
KressG. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, England: Routledge.
20.
KressG.Van LeeuwenT. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London, England: Routledge.
21.
KressG.Van LeeuwenT. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London, England: Hodder Arnold.
22.
KressG.Van LeeuwenT. (2002). Colour as a semiotic mode: Notes for a grammar of colour. Visual Communication, 1, 343-368.
23.
LacyM. L. (1996). The power of color to heal the environment. London, England: Rainbow Bridge Publications.
24.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
25.
MachinD. (2008). Introduction to multimodal analysis. London, England: Hodder Arnold.
26.
MachinD.MayrA. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. London, England: Sage.
27.
MartinecR.SalwayA. (2005). A system for image-text relations in new and old media. Visual Communication, 4, 337-371.
MoirandS. (2003). Communicative and cognitive dimensions of discourse on science in the French mass media. Discourse Studies, 5, 175-206.
30.
Molek-KozakowskaK. (2013). Towards a pragma-linguistic framework for the study of sensationalism in news headlines. Discourse & Communication, 7, 173-197.
31.
Molek-KozakowskaK. (2016). Framing disease, ageing and death in popular science journalism. Brno Studies in English, 42(1), 49-69.
32.
Molek-KozakowskaK. (2017). Stylistic analysis of headlines in science journalism: A case study of New Scientist. Public Understanding of Science, 26, 894-907.
33.
MontgomeryM. (2007). The discourse of broadcast news: A linguistic approach. London, England: Routledge.
34.
MyersG. (2003). Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries. Discourse Studies, 5, 265-279.
35.
NewtonJ. (2001). The burden of visual truth: The role of photojournalism in mediating reality. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
O’HalloranK. (2008). Systemic functional-multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery. Visual Communication, 7, 443-475.
37.
O’TooleM. (1994). The language of displayed art. Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press.
38.
PerraultS. (2013). Communicating popular science: From deficit to democracy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
PuhallaD. (2008). Perceiving hierarchy through intrinsic color structure. Visual Communication, 7, 199-228.
40.
RoyceT. (1998). Synergy on the page: Exploring intersemiotic complementarity in page-based multimodal text. JASFL Occasional Papers, 1(1), 25-49.
41.
SaninaA. (2019). “Who are you kidding?” Visual political irony in contemporary RussiaQualitative Inquiry, 25, 432-444.
42.
SzymaK. (2018). The eristic of newsworthiness in the representation of Barnevernet controversy: A case study of the Norwegian Child Welfare Service. Res Rhetorica, 5(1), 1-20.
Van LeeuwenT. (2005). Introduction to social semiotics. London, England: Routledge.
45.
WeitkampE. (2003). British newspapers privilege health and medicine topics over other science news. Public Relations Review, 29, 321-333.
46.
WilkeR.HillM. (2019). On new forms of science communication and communication in science. A videographic approach to visuality in science slams and academic group talks. Qualitative Inquiry, 25, 363-378.
47.
WojcieszakM. (2009). Three dimensionality: Taxonomy of iconic, linguistic, and audio messages in television news. Television & New Media, 10, 459-481.
48.
ZelizerB. (2010). About to die: How news images move the public. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
