This study examined the disability support offices (DSOs) websites of twelve US higher education institutions (HEIs) anchored in multimodal discourse analysis and genre analysis to examine how semiotic resources are deployed to describe DSO services on their websites and to determine the discursive functions of advertisement they perform. The DSO websites were within four clicks from HEI homepages but had inconsistent navigation paths, making it difficult to reach DSO websites. DSO websites were foregrounding promoting and branding the institutions rather than presenting the information about the services offered. This is achieved by using multimodal promotional rhetoric such as: (a) situating accessibility as central commodifiable attribute, (b) promoting the value of accessibility, (c) establishing the superiority of the institution, (d) constructing images of students with disabilities as empowered but dependent upon the DSO, and (e) situating students within a college community. Implications for DSO websites functioning as advertisements are also discussed.
AdamiE (2015) What’s in a click? A social semiotic framework for the multimodal analysis of website interactivity. Visual Communication14(2): 133–153.
2.
AdreonDDurocherJS (2007) Evaluating the college transition needs of individuals with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders. Intervention in School & Clinic42(5): 271–279.
3.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328 (1990).
AskehaveI (2007) The impact of marketization on higher education genres: The international student prospectus as a case in point. Discourse Studies9(6): 723–742.
6.
AskehaveINielsenA (2005) What are the characteristics of digital genres? - Genre theory from a multi-modal perspective. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, USA. doi:10.1109/hicss.2005.687.
7.
BatemanJA (2008) Multimodality and Genre. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
8.
BhatiaVK (1993) Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
9.
BoyerLBrunnerBRCharlesT, et al. (2006) Managing impressions in a virtual environment: Is ethnic diversity a self-preservation strategy for colleges and universities?Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12: 136–154.
10.
BrookesGHarveyK (2015) Peddling a semiotics of fear: A critical examination of scare tactics and commercial strategies in public health promotion. Social Semiotics25: 57–80.
11.
Caldas-CoulthardC (2008) Body branded: Multimodal identities in tourism advertising. Journal of Language and Politics7(3): 451–470.
12.
Chan-OlmstedSParkJS (2000) From on-air to online world: Examining the content and structures of broadcast TV stations’ web sites. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly77(2): 321–339.
13.
CollinsMEMowbrayCT (2008) Students with psychiatric disabilities on campus: Examining predictors of enrollment with disability support services. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability21(2): 91–104.
14.
ComberT (1995) Building usable web pages: An HCI perspective. In:Proceedings of the First Australian World Wide Web Conference (eds. DebrecenyREllisA). Ballina, Australia: Norsearch, April. pp. 119–124. Available at: http://www.scu.edu.au/sponsored/ausWeb/ausWeb95/papers/hypertext/comber/
15.
ConnellIGalasinskiD (1998) Academic mission statements: An exercise in negotiation. Discourse and Society9(4): 457–479.
DjonovE (2007) Website hierarchy and the interaction between content organization, webpage and navigation design: A systemic functional hypermedia discourse analysis perspective. Information Design Journal15(2): 144–162.
18.
DjonovEKnoxJS (2014) How-to-analyze webpages. In: NorrisSMaierCD (eds) Interactions, Images and Texts: A Reader in Multimodality. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 171–193.
19.
DjonovEKnoxJSZhaoS (2015) Interpreting websites in educational contexts: A social-semiotic, multimodal approach. In: SmeyersPBridgesDBurbulesNC, et al, (eds) International Handbook of Interpretation in Educational Research. Netherlands: Springer Nature, pp. 315–345.
20.
EllcessorE (2015) Blurred lines: Accessibility, disability, and definitional limitations. First Monday20(9). doi:10.5210/fm.v20i9.6169
21.
EysenbachGTillJE (2001) Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. British Medical Journal323: 1103–1105.
22.
FaircloughN (1993) Critical discourse analysis and the marketisation of public discourse: The universities. Discourse and Society4(2): 133–168.
23.
FreemanTMAndermanLHJensenJM (2007) Sense of belonging in college freshmen classroom and campus levels. The Journal of Experimental Education75(3): 203–220.
24.
ForsbachTARice-MasonJ (2001) College students’ utilization and perceptions of disability support services. Academic Exchange Quarterly5(2): 113.
25.
GabelSLReidDPearsonH, et al. (2015) Disability and diversity on CSU websites: A critical discourse study. Journal of Diversity in Higher education9(1): 64–80.
26.
HallettRWKaplan-WeingerJ (2010) Official Tourism Websites: A Discourse Analysis Perspective. Bristol: Channon View Publications.
27.
Hiiplala(2014) Multimodal genre analysis. In: MaierCDNorrisS (eds) Texts, Images and Interactions: A Reader in Multimodality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 111–123.
28.
JewittC (ed.) (2016) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge.
29.
JocsonKM (2013) Remix revisited: Critical solidarity in youth media arts. E-Learning and Digital Media10(1): 68–82.
30.
JordonMP (1986) Co-associative lexical cohesion in promotional literature. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 6(1), 33–53.
31.
KravetsMWaxIF (2016) The K&W Guide to Colleges for Students with Learning Differences. New York: Princeton Review.
32.
KnoxJ (2007) Visual-verbal communication on online newspaper home pages, Visual Communication6(1): 19–53.
33.
KressGVan LeeuwenT (1998) Front pages: (The critical) analysis of newspaper layout. In: BellAGarrettP (eds) Approaches to Media Discourse, pp. 186–219. Oxford: Blackwell.
34.
KressGVan LeeuwenT (2001) Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
35.
KressGVan LeeuwenT (2006) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
36.
KwongJ (2000) Introduction: Marketization and privatization in education. International Journal of Educational Development20: 87–92.
37.
LedinPMachinD (2015) A multimodal critical discourse analytic approach to university rebranding. In: RossolatosG (ed.) Handbook of Brand Semiotics. Kassel: Kassel University Press GmbH, pp. 280–327.
38.
MartinJRWhitePR (2005) Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
MokKH (1999) Education and the market place in Hong Kong and Mainland China. Higher Education37: 133–158.
41.
O’HalloranKLWignellPTanS (2015) Online university branding: A multimodal social semiotic approach. In: RossolatosG (ed.) Handbook of Brand Semiotics. Kassel: Kassel University Press GmbH, pp. 280–327.
42.
PauwelsL (2012) A multimodal framework for analyzing websites as cultural expressions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17: 247–265.
43.
RaymakerDMKappSKMcDonaldKE, et al. (2019) Development of the AASPIRE web accessibility guidelines for autistic web users. Autism in Adulthood1(2): 146–157.
44.
ShattuckPTNarendorfSCCooperB, et al. (2012) Postsecondary education and employment among youth with an autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics129(6): 1042–1049.
45.
SkorupaPDubovicieneT (2015) Linguistic characteristics of commercial and social advertising slogans. Coactivity: Philology, Educology23(2): 108.
46.
SwalesJ (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van LeeuwenT (2005) Introducing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge.
49.
Van NoyMHeidkampMKaltzC (2013) How are community colleges serving the needs of older students with disabilities? Issue Brief, NTAR Leadership Center.
50.
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 (2008, December11). Retrieved February8, 2020, from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.
51.
ZembytskaMMazurY (2018) Stylistic features of English advertising slogans. Scientific Journal of Lviv State University of Life Safety4: 39–43.
52.
ZhangT (2017) The marketization of higher education discourse: A genre analysis of university website homepages in China. Higher Education Studies7(3): 64–79.
53.
ZhangYQO’HalloranKL (2012) The gate of the gateway: A hypermodal approach to university homepages. Semiotica2012(190): 87–109.
54.
ZhangYO’HalloranKL (2013) ‘Toward a global knowledge enterprise’: University websites as portals to the ongoing marketization of higher education. Critical Discourse Studies10(4): 468–485.
