Recent decades have witnessed the increasing popularity of animation used for science education. However, the affordances of animation are still yet to be described in a comprehensive manner. Working on a corpus of online science animated videos, this article firstly proposes a visual rhythm system for animation, and then examines the convergence and divergence of the rhythm in animation and language at different levels of analysis. The author found that different visual rhythms in animation function to construe different quantities and properties of entities. In terms of the intermodal relations between animation and language, at shorter wavelengths, animation can be in sync with the rhythm in language, with different ‘beats’ in animation converging with different phonological units in language; at longer wavelengths, the larger rhythmic pattern of animation can function to scaffold the generic structure of language. This article enriches the systematic description of the meaning-making potential of animation, which also informs empirical studies focusing on the effectiveness of animation used for science education.
AyresP, et al. (2009) Learning hand manipulative tasks: When instructional animations are superior to equivalent static representations. Computers in Human Behavior25(2): 348–353.
4.
BatemanJAWildfeuerJHiippalaT (2017) Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis. A Problem-Oriented Introduction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
5.
BerneySBétrancourtM (2016) Does animation enhance learning? A meta-analysis. Computers and Education101: 150–167.
6.
BucherHJNiemannP (2012) Visualizing science: The reception of PowerPoint presentations. Visual Communication11(3): 283–306.
7.
CleirighC (2011) Gestural and postural semiosis: A systemic-functional linguistic approach to body language. Unpublished manuscript.
EisensteinS (1963) Film Forum. London: Dennis Dobson.
10.
HallidayMAK (1967) Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.
11.
HallidayMAKMatthiessenCMIM (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn.London: Hodder Arnold.
12.
HaoJHoodS (2019) Valuing science: The role of language and body language in a health science lecture. Journal of Pragmatics139: 200–215.
13.
HeY (2020) A functional perspective on the semiotic features of science animation. In: UnsworthL (ed.) Learning from Animations in Science Education: Innovating in Semiotic and Educational Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 25–54.
14.
HeY (2021) Towards a stratified metafunctional model of animation. Semiotica239: 1–35.
15.
HeYVan LeeuwenT (2020) Animation and the remediation of school physics: A social semiotic approach. Social Semiotics30(5): 665–684.
16.
HoodS (2011) Body language in face-to-face teaching: A focus on textual and interpersonal metafunctions. In: DreyfusS, et al. (eds) Semiotic Margins: Meaning in Multimodalities. London: Continuum, 31–52.
17.
JohnstonOThomasF (1981) The Illusion of Life: Disney Animation. New York, NY: Disney Editions.
18.
KressGVan LeeuwenT (2006) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd edn.London: Routledge.
MartinJRZappavignaM (2019) Embodied meaning: A systemic functional perspective on paralanguage. Functional Linguistics6: 1–33.
24.
MartinecR (2000) Rhythm in multimodal texts. Leonardo33(4): 289–297.
25.
MartinezOOL (2015) Criteria for defining animation: A revision of the definition of animation in the advent of digital moving images. animation: an interdisciplinary journal10(1): 42–57.
26.
MayerR (2009) Multimedia Learning, 2nd edn.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27.
NgoT, et al. (2021) Modelling Paralanguage Using Systemic Functional Semiotics: Theory and Application. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
28.
PloetznerRLoweR (2012) A systematic characterisation of expository animations. Computers in Human Behavior28(3): 781–794.
ScheiterK (2017) Design of effective dynamic visualizations: A struggle between the beauty and the beast. In: LoweRPloetznerR (eds) Learning from Dynamic Visualization. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 233–251.
31.
SmetanaLKBellRL (2012) Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education34(9): 1337–1370. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.605182.
TverskyBMorrisonJBBetrancourtM (2002) Animation: Can it facilitate?International Journal of Human–Computer Studies57: 247–262.
35.
UnsworthL (2020) A multidisciplinary perspective on animation design and use in science education. In: UnsworthL (ed.) Learning from Animations in Science Education: Innovating in Semiotic and Educational Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 3–22.
36.
Van LeeuwenT (1985) Rhythmic structure of the film text. In: Van DijkTA (ed.) Discourse and Communication: New Approaches to the Analysis of Mass Media Discourse and Communication. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 216–232.
37.
Van LeeuwenT (1999) Speech, Music, Sound. Houndmills: Macmillan.
38.
Van LeeuwenT (2005) Introducing Social Semiotics. Abingdon: Routledge.
39.
VistisenP (2019) Science visualization: Principles for an emerging animation community to consider. WeAnimate – The Danish Animation Society (ANIS)1(3): 80–85.
ZappavignaM, et al. (2010) The coupling of gesture and phonology. In: BednarekMMartinJR (eds) New Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity, and Affiliation. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 219–236.
