The rise of image-reading media has revolutionized environmental communication, particularly through multi-semiotic posters. This study examines how environmental posters produced by the Chinese Ministry of Ecology and Environment enhance the visibility of green strategies through signs and their affordances. Using Peircean semiotics and Hallidayan ordered typology of systems, the author analyses 44 posters containing over 480 signs to identify semiotic hybridization and rhetorical strategies. The article’s multi-semiotic corpus-based approach, combining qualitative and quantitative analyses, reveals how sign-makers adapt signs and design concepts to engage diverse audiences effectively. Results show that the sign types across different systems are motivated by material and immaterial affordances, increasing the semiotic persuasive power of multi-semiotic meaning-making. This study offers insights into the design of environmental communication strategies, demonstrating the critical role of multi-semiotic systems in conveying ecological information to broad audiences.
BarthesR (1977) Rhetoric of the image. In: BarthesR (ed.) Image–Music–Text. London: Fontana.
3.
BatemanJWildfeuerJHiippalaT (2017) Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis: A Problem Oriented Introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
4.
BurkeK (1969[1950]) A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
ChandlerD (2017) Semiotics: The Basics, 3rd edn.New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
ChristensenLH (2019) Curating the poster: An environmental approach. Design Issues35(2): 28–45.
7.
CoxRDepoeS (2015) Emergence and growth of the ‘field’ of environmental communication. In: HansenACoxR (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication. London: Routledge, 13–25.
8.
CozenB (2013) Mobilizing artists: Green Patriot Posters, visual metaphors, and climate change activism. Environmental Communication7(2): 297–314.
9.
DyerG (1982) Advertising as Communication. London: Routledge.
10.
DurandJ (1987) Rhetorical figures in the advertising image. In: Umiker-SebeokJ (ed.) Marketing and Semiotics: New Directions in the Study of Signs for Sale. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
11.
ElleströmL (2010) Media Borders, Multimodality and Intermediality. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
12.
EpplerM (2013) What is an effective knowledge visualization? Insights from a review of seminal concepts. In: MarcheseFTBanissiE (eds) Knowledge Visualization Currents. London: Springer-Verlag.
13.
FossGBurgessM (2023) Optimism and alienation – colour schemes and soundscapes as means for the social construction of risk in climate education videos. Social Semiotics33(2): 350–372.
14.
GibsonJ (2015[1979]) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (classic edn). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
15.
HallidayMA (1978) Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
16.
HallidayMA (2003[1983]) On the transition from child tongue to mother tongue. In: WebsterJ (ed.) The Language of Early Childhood: M.A.K. Halliday. London: Continuum, 210–226.
17.
HallidayMA (2003[1985]) Systemic background. In: WebsterJ (ed.) On Language and Linguistics: M.A.K. Halliday. London: Continuum, 185–198.
18.
HallidayMA (2003[1995]) On language in relation to the evolution of human conciousness. In: WebsterJ (ed.) On Language and Linguistics: M.A.K. Halliday. London: Continuum, 390–432.
19.
HallidayMA (2003[1996]) On grammar and grammatics. In: WebsterJ (ed.) On Grammar. London: Continuum, 384–418.
20.
HallidayMA (2003) Introduction: On the ‘architecture’ of human language. In: WebsterJ (ed.) On Language and Linguistics. London: Continuum, 1–32.
21.
HallidayMA (2005) On matter and meaning: The two realms of human experience. Linguistics and the Human Sciences1(1): 59–82.
22.
HallidayMA (2013) Meaning as choice. In: FontaineL, et al. (eds) Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choices. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 15–36.
23.
HallidayMAMatthiessenC (1999) Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.
24.
HanY (2022) Modeling visual rhetoric from a Systemic-Functional perspective: Based on multimodal verbal–visual corpus. Shanghai: Tongji University.
25.
HansenA (2011) Communication, media and environment: Towards reconnecting research on the production, content and social implications of environmental communication. International Communication Gazette73(1): 7–25.
26.
HansenA (2017) Methods for assessing visual images and depictions of climate change. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.491.
27.
HansenA (2019) Environment, Media and Communication, 2nd edn.London: Routledge.
28.
HansenACoxJ (2016) The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication. London: Routledge.
29.
HansenAMachinD (2008) Visually branding the environment: Climate change as a marketing opportunity. Discourse Studies10(6): 777–794.
HodgeRKressG (1988) Social Semiotics. London: Polity.
32.
HuhmannBAAlbinssonP A (2019) Assessing the usefulness of taxonomies of visual rhetorical figures. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising40: 171–195.
KaplanS (2005) Visual metaphors in print advertising for fashion products. In: SmithK, et al. (eds) Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 167–178.
37.
KjeldsenJ (2017) The rhetorical and argumentative potentials of press photography. In: TseronisAForcevilleC (eds) Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 51–80.
38.
KohrsK (2018) Public relations as visual meaning-making. In: CollisterSRoberts-BowmanS (eds) Visual Public Relations Strategic Communication Beyond Text. London: Routledge, 13–28.
39.
KressG (1993) Against arbitrariness: The social production of the sign as a foundational issue in Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society4(2): 169–191.
40.
KressG (2010) Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Taylor & Francis.
41.
KressGVan LeeuwenT (2020) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 3rd edn.London: Routledge.
42.
KressG, et al. (2001) Multimodal Teaching and Learning: The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. London: Continuum.
43.
LangerS (1957) Philosophy in a New Key. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
LemkeJ (1993) Discourse, dynamics, and social change. Cultural Dynamics6(1): 243–257.
45.
LemkeJ (2000) Material sign progresses and emergent ecosocial organization. In: AndersenPB, et al. (eds) Downward Causation. Aarhus: University of Aarhus Press, 181–213.
46.
MacagnoFPintoR (2021) Reconstructing multimodal arguments in advertisements: Combining pragmatics and argumentation theory. Argumentation35(1): 141–176.
47.
MatthiessenC (2009) Multisemiosis and context-based register typology: Registerial variation in the complementarity of semiotic systems. In VentolaEGuijarroA (eds) The World Told and the World Shown: Multisemiotic Issues. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 11–38.
48.
MatthiessenC (2017) Language use in a social semiotic perspective. In: BarronA, et al. (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge, 459–489.
49.
MatthiessenCPunJ (2019) Expounding knowledge through explanations: Generic types and rhetorical–relational patterns. Semiotica227: 31–76.
50.
MetzeT (2020) Visualization in environmental policy and planning: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning22(5): 745–760.
51.
MorrisC (1971) Writings on the General Theory of Signs. The Hague: Mouton.
52.
MorselettoP (2017) Analysing the influence of visualisations in global environmental governance. Environmental Science & Policy78: 40–48.
53.
O’HalloranK, et al. (2018) Digital mixed methods research design: Integrating multimodal analysis with data mining and information visualization for big data analytics. Journal of Mixed Methods Research12(1):11–30.
54.
O’NeillS (2013) Image matters: Climate change imagery in US, UK and Australian newspapers. Geoforum49: 10–19.
55.
O’NeillS (2020) More than meets the eye: A longitudinal analysis of climate change imagery in the print media. Climatic Change163(1): 9–26.
56.
PeirceC (1994) The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57.
PlatonovaM (2019) Poster, poster on the wall, do you really mean it all? Decoding visual metaphor ‘global warning’ in public awareness campaigns. Research in Language17(2): 147–166.
58.
RodriguezLDimitrovaD (2011) The levels of visual framing. Journal of Visual Literacy30(1): 48–65.
59.
RoqueG (2015) Should visual arguments be propositional in order to be arguments?Argumentation29: 177–195.
60.
RoyceT (1998) Synergy on the page: Exploring intersemiotic complementarity in page-based multimodal text. Japan Association Systemic Functional Linguistics Occasional Papers1(1): 25–50.
61.
StöcklH (2004) In between modes: Language and image in printed media. In: VentolaE, et al. (eds) Perspectives on Multimodality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 9–30.
62.
ThibaultP (2004) Brain, Mind and the Signifying Body: An Ecosocial Semiotic Theory. London: Continuum.
63.
Van BeekL (2020) Environmental visualizations: Framing and reframing between science, policy and society. Environmental Science & Policy114: 497–505.
