A BILDLINGUISTIC APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS OF A CREOLIZED (POLYCODE) TEXT

Gunya F.A.

Moscow State Linguistic University
Moscow, Russia
E-mail: gunyaf@yahoo.com

Introduction

Combining multiple semiotic systems in a single text is nothing new; however, technological advances have significantly expanded the possibilities for transmitting information, particularly in the realm of media communication. Coupled with the demand for interdisciplinarity, this has sparked the study of creolized texts—texts created using multiple semiotic systems simultaneously.

In Russian linguistics, several research approaches to this phenomenon can be identified, and it should also be noted that there is currently no unified terminology for creolized text. One of the first attempts at conceptualization was made by G.V. Yeiger and V.L. Yukht, who proposed the term "polycode text" and understood it as a combination of "natural language code with code"
any other semiotic system" [4, p. 107]. This semiotic approach considers the text as a composite formation of several sign systems. The alternative term "creolized text" was introduced by Yu.A. Sorokin and E.F. Tarasov [5, p. 180] in the mainstream of text linguistics. This text-centric position to a certain extent distinguishes between the verbal component and the other sign systems present in such text formations, forming an opposition between the verbal and the non-verbal, but at the same time dialectically uniting them into a holistic structure. Despite the differences, both directions can be productively combined; researchers note the synonymy of their terminological apparatus [2, p. 20]. In addition, other research perspectives have emerged in the field of CT studies, which are generally combined with those mentioned above: for example, the linguacentric approach focuses on the verbal component, while the cognitive approach examines creolized texts through the prism of cognitive linguistics.

One of the newest major areas is the psycholinguistic approach, which examines creolized texts in terms of their impact on the recipient and the characteristics of their perception. Using experimental methods, researchers have developed a method for determining the degree of creolization, characterizing this value as a "creolization coefficient" [3, p. 52]. It is noteworthy that the authors proceed from the premise that any "natural" text (in their terminology, one that arises spontaneously, as opposed to an artificial, human-created text with a specific purpose) is creolized [Ibid., p. 24].

In the international tradition, the dominant approach is the multimodal approach of G. Kress and T. van Leeuwen, defined by the authors themselves as "social-semiotic" [10]. It is on this theoretical foundation that the bildlinguistic approach was formed – a broad field integrating many elements of domestic approaches (developed independently). Representatives of this field position it as a specific research perspective within the framework of media linguistics and text linguistics.

The relevance of this study stems from the need to integrate domestic and international research paradigms in the context of the increasing multimodality of modern communication. It is also worth noting the need for researchers to develop interdisciplinary methodological tools for the analysis of complex semiotic formations.

In this regard, we set the following research objectives:

1. To reconstruct the theoretical and methodological prerequisites for the formation of the bildlinguistic approach in the context of the theory of multimodality.
2. To identify the structural and conceptual differences between the domestic tradition of studying creolized texts and the bildlinguistic methodology in understanding the nature of this phenomenon.
3. To substantiate the possibility of a methodological synthesis of both approaches to expand the toolkit for studying multimodal texts.

The scientific novelty of this work lies in the fact that for the first time in Russian linguistics, it attempts to conceptually compare the bildlinguistic approach with the tradition of studying creolized texts. It also introduces bildlinguistic terminology into scientific circulation, along with a rationale for adapting it to the Russian-language scientific paradigm.

The theoretical significance of this study lies in its expansion of the methodological perspectives of Russian text linguistics and media linguistics through the explication of the conceptual foundations of bildlinguistics. Furthermore, it highlights the scientific value of identifying the potential for interdisciplinary dialogue between various traditions in the study of creolized texts.

The origins of the bildlinguistic approach are the multimodality of G. Kress and T. van Leeuwen

In foreign linguistics, the study of texts that include more than just verbal components is associated with the theory of multimodality. It is on this theory that the bildlinguistic approach is built, preserving the core terminology without contradicting it, but organically building on its theoretical and methodological foundation. G. Kress and T. van Leeuwen are rightfully considered the founders of multimodality theory, whose works have had a significant influence on the development of modern text semiotics.

It should be noted that, in putting forward the theory of multimodality, G. Kress and T. van Leeuwen rely primarily on the systemic-functional linguistics of M. Halliday with its emphasis on the social nature of language. This explains their own approach, which they call social-semiotic [10], and which views communication as a socially determined process [14, p. 6].

According to G. Kress and T. van Leeuwen, a multimodal text consists of so-called modes (English:. modes), through which all relevant information is transmitted during the communication process. This term should be translated as "mode", since the authors modality (English) / modality is another, separate term denoting such a category of multimodal text as the degree of truth of a statement – in fact, initially a grammatical category that the authors applied to the text as a whole [14, pp. 154–174].

It can be immediately noted that their theory differs significantly from the domestic approach to the creolized text (CT), where a strong influence of traditional written linguistics is still evident and the binary opposition of "verbality - non-verbality" is explicitly emphasized (as, for example, in the definition of CT by Yu.A. Sorokin and E.F. Tarasov [5, p. 180]). However, this feature is not oppositional to the concept of "multimodal text" and, even more so, to the entire theory as a whole. Thus, the authors understand "modes" as a socially formed and culturally conditioned semiotic resource for giving meaning to a message. Image, writing, layout, music, gesture, speech, moving image, sound track, etc. are considered as such modes [10, p. 79] - that is, practically everything that is understood in the domestic theory as components of a creolized text [1, p. 73], although with different emphases and theoretical implications.

In highlighting the concept of "mode," the authors explicitly acknowledge their symbolic nature (often calling them "semiotic modes"). However, they conceptually distinguish between what sign systems use to create meaning (mode as a semiotic resource) and how this is materially embodied in specific communicative situations—media as a channel for transmitting information. As G. Kress notes: "Meanings are always transmitted through certain media: books or compact discs, including still and moving images, speech, writing..." [11, p. 111].

Let us dwell in more detail on the «social» component in the multimodal approach (the authors call their approach
(social-semiotic, emphasizing its fundamental orientation towards the socio-cultural context). According to the authors, the choice of mode is culturally and historically specific [14, p. 2]. For example, in one of their works, G. Kress and T. van Leeuwen call monomodality a certain cultural preference of Western civilization - written texts initially remained exclusively written, without illustrations, just as paintings were always painted on the same traditional basis (canvas, oil) [13, p. 1].

Despite the use of the term "monomodality," which creates a certain opposition to multimodal texts, the authors still argue that any text is multimodal [12, p. 186]. It should be noted that many domestic linguistic studies of CT are based on binary oppositions (verbal - non-verbal; polycode - monocode), etc., which undoubtedly always raises the methodologically complex question of which text should be considered creolized (polycode), and which is not? Thereby involuntarily preserving the traditional approach, where one can study exclusively "written" text without due consideration, for example, of its paraverbal, typographic and spatial properties, which are also meaning-forming. However, this is not a distinctive feature of all domestic approaches: for example, the psycholinguistic approach proceeds from the premise that any natural text is creolized [3, p. 24].

Bildlinguistic approach

One of the significant stages in the development of multimodality theory was the concept of bildlinguistics, developed by German scholars and representing a qualitatively new approach to understanding the interaction of verbal and visual components of text. This new direction was initiated by the fundamental work of German scholars, "Bildlinguistics. Theories – Methods – Examples" (German: [Bildlinguistics: Theories – Methods – Examples]), published in 2011. «"Bildlinguistik." Theorien – Methoden – Fallbeispiele») [7]. In this programmatic collection, the authors present a new concept for studying multimodal texts, defining its place in the modern scientific paradigm and demonstrating its methodological potential.

The question of adequately translating the term "bildlinguistics" into Russian presents not only a terminological but also a conceptual challenge. We translate this term as "bildlinguistics," as alternative translations could lead to terminological confusion and conceptual distortions. For example, if we were to translate this term as "visual linguistics," this would create ambiguity, as this term is already established in German scientific discourse in relation to other types of research. In particular, a German researcher
N. Bubenhofer uses this term in relation to research on data visualization and its use in language studies [6].

It is also worth paying special attention to the fact that the component "«Bild»" (German) / picture, image, depiction in this composite cannot be reduced to the narrow translation of "image"; this term covers a broader and methodologically significant category of "imagery" in its various manifestations. The key point is that in the term "«Bild»"This term includes both verbal and cognitive elements (in addition to the visual), which demonstrates the fundamentally integrative nature of the approach. The authors emphasize that this term should be understood metaphorically and emphasize that the central element is the study of the relationship between language and image in creolized texts [7, p. 9].

Thus, according to the definition of the authors, bildlinguistics should be understood as «the study of the relationship between language and image as part of integral text formations, as well as the application of linguistic concepts, models and methods to the study of image, mainly embedded in mass media forms
communications" [7, p. 9].

This definition shares some substantive similarities with the Russian theory of creolized text, which also conceptually emphasizes the structural-semantic fusion of verbal and nonverbal components within a single textual whole. This convergence of approaches somewhat distinguishes bildlinguistics from the English-language theory of multimodality by G. Kress and T. van Leeuwen, which essentially does not prioritize the "verbal-nonverbal" opposition.«
(language – image), and all modes are considered as equal semiotic resources in the general system of meaning generation.

This conceptual commonality of bildlinguistics with the domestic approach is not accidental, but is connected with the reliance on earlier fundamental research by another German scientist, K. Sachs-Hombach, conducted within the framework of image science (German:. Bildwissenschaft), which is an interdisciplinary field that studies the phenomenon of the image [16, p. 3]. Within the framework of the author's research, the emphasis of the study was concentrated on images in their broad sense, including visual elements of various natures: at the same time, a certain linguistic methodology was actively adopted and adapted. K. Sachs-Hombach in his research also consistently supports the fundamental thesis that images have a symbolic essence, and that their adequate scientific study is possible only with a combination of semiotic and theoretical-perceptual considerations [16, p. 12].

The science of images also lies in the premises of the Bildlinguistic approach itself – one of its founders, H. Stöckl, back in 2004 put forward in one of his works the idea of the «trinity of imagery» (German:. Dreifaltigkeit des Bildlichen). This hypothesis is based on the structural and functional relationship between three types of imagery: visual (material, perceptually perceived images), linguistic (verbal images, metaphors, figurative expressions) and mental (cognitive representations, visual conceptualizations, mental models) [18, p. 9].

In fact, H. Stöckl made a methodologically significant step that served as an important prerequisite for the development of the bildlinguistic approach: he not only reproduced the classic disposition (verbal vs. nonverbal) characteristic of most studies of creolized texts, but expanded and transformed it, adding a third dimension—mental imagery, traditionally the domain of cognitive linguistics. This expansion of the analytical framework allows for a more comprehensive description of meaning-making processes in multimodal texts, including the cognitive mechanisms for processing and integrating information from sources represented by various semiotic systems.

The main goal of H. Stöckl's work "Language in the Picture - Picture in Language" (German). «Die Sprache im Bild – Das Bild in der Sprache») provides a rationale for the need to study images in linguistics; as well as the legitimization of images as an object of research, which «challenges» the exclusively textual approach [18, p. 5].

This fundamental work served as a powerful
theoretical and methodological foundation and conceptual platform for the subsequent substantiation of the bildlinguistic approach. In addition to the concept of the so-called "trinity of imagery," the author also systematically describes and typologizes the diverse
linguistic-figurative connections, highlighting several qualitatively different types of relationships between the verbal and visual components of a creolized text. It is fundamentally important that
H. Stöckl does not limit himself to the general statement that text is multimodal by nature, but goes further, proposing a taxonomy of the ways, mechanisms, and strategies by which language and image interact, combine, and integrate to create the holistic meaning of a text [18, pp. 253–283]. This taxonomy can serve as an important tool for the empirical analysis of creolized texts.

In this 2004 work, H. Stöckl also substantiates the need for a systematic typification and classification of images strictly analogous to the established typology of texts in linguistics
(German). Textsorten), which would make it possible to create a comparable methodological apparatus. The key theoretical idea lies in the fundamental thesis that there is no abstract «image in general» as a universal semiotic object, but only specific types of images that function and are used in concrete, specific communicative contexts [18, p. 22].

Many ideas from this work by H. Stöckl served
theoretical and methodological foundation for the identification of the bildlinguistic approach. In particular, the concept of the trinity of imagery: thus, already in the fundamental collection of 2011, where the term "bildlinguistics" was identified, the word "«Bild»" (picture, image, depiction) in the conceptual system of this approach is constituted as a complex multi-level category that encompasses three interconnected components of text formation and meaning generation [7, p. 10].

The collection also managed to empirically verify this concept in connection with the study of a specific type of media texts – the so-called «Hörfilme»(literally, "auditory films") – films for the blind and visually impaired, equipped with audio descriptions. These texts represent unique research material, as they explicate the process of transforming visual information into verbal information to create mental images.

Thus, in the context of research into audio description in films for the blind and visually impaired, U. Fix, in the same 2011 collection, sets the goal of «studying how audio description functions» [8, p. 313] – in other words, how the visual information of the film (the material image) is transformed and verbalized through language (the verbal sign system) to successfully create an adequate mental image in a blind/visually impaired recipient. Thus, the mental image in this conceptual triad plays the role of a certain cognitive effect, the end result of the process of decoding and interpreting signs by the recipient. U. Fix rightly notes that professional audio descriptors must have knowledge of which contents of ideas, which specific mental images are stably associated with which words and expressions [Ibid., p. 310].

What is interesting and methodologically significant about this concept is the author's consistent distinction between different types of images based on their semiotic nature and mode of manifestation: thus, U. Fix rightly classifies onomatopoeia as material images, since it possesses a direct, motivated connection with the phenomenon being designated. Thus, the author conceptually separates "ordinary" language from the phenomenon of imagery [8, p. 309].

Returning to the comparison of the domestic, multimodal, and bildlinguistic approaches, German researchers take an even more radical approach to the thesis that any text is multimodal. Proponents of the bildlinguistic approach argue that this thesis is positioned as a consistent declaration of the methodological impossibility of the existence of so-called "pure verbality"—as well as pure visuality—as well as the inseparable unity and complementarity of the verbal and visual [7, p. 10].

It should also be noted that other fundamental ideas of multimodality have been integrated by the bildlinguistic approach: the authors also emphasize the fact of the cultural and social determinacy of the conventions of the use and interpretation of signs (as in the theory of multimodality) [7, p. 11]. However, the bildlinguistic approach places a clearer emphasis on linguistic and textual aspects, compared to the broader socio-semiotic approach of G. Kress and T. van Leeuwen. The above definition of bildlinguistics indicates the fact that the fundamental element of this approach is the application of linguistic concepts, models and methods to the study of images.

A significant contribution to the theoretical development and methodological operationalization of bildlinguistics was also made by the German researcher F. Grosse. F. Grosse's monograph "Bildlinguistics" (German: "«Bild-Linguistik. Grundbegriffe und Methoden der linguistischen Bildanalyse in Text- und Diskursumgebungen»") is a large-scale fundamental work aimed at developing linguistic methods for the empirical analysis of images in texts and discourses [9]. Based on the functional-pragmatic approach to language and text
[Ibid., p. 19], F. Grosse made an attempt to develop a complex linguistic apparatus for the systematic analysis of images in interaction with verbal text, and also proposed an analysis model that takes into account the structural, semantic, pragmatic and functional aspects of images in their relationship [10, p. 8–9].

In essence, the author set herself the same fundamental research tasks as H. Stöckl and colleagues in their previous and subsequent works [18; 7]. In particular, overcoming the existing interdisciplinary gap, the artificial demarcation line between traditional linguistics and visual communication studies, consistently recognizing images as equal, equal-status sign systems along with natural language [9, p. 15]. One of the goals of this monograph, the author calls the development of a practically applicable analytical tool for conducting "linguistic image analysis"«
(German). linguistische Bildanalyse) – in specific empirical studies [9, pp. 20–22].

In his work, F. Grosse presents a step-by-step model for analyzing creolized texts. It should be noted that the author examines CT with a static visual component in his study. In the author's terminology, this type of creolized text is referred to as
as language-image-text (German. Sprache-Bild-Text). In addition, F. Grosse introduces the term linguistic text (German. Bild-Text) to designate visual sign formations in the context of either a written text or
socio-cultural communicative situation, as well as the term image-text (German. Sprach-Text) for verbal sign formations [9, pp. 32–33]. The use of this terminology helps the author to identify the minimal components of CT.

The first stage of analysis involves examining the extralinguistic contextual factors of the CT: the form of communication, the scope of action, and the relationship between the author and the recipient. The second stage involves dividing the CT into two components – (Bild-Text (German)/image-text) and verbal (Sprach-Text (German)/linguistic text) – and a separate analysis of intralinguistic factors. These factors include the communicative-functional, thematic-structural, and grammatical-structural aspects of these components. It is worth noting the analysis of the visual component, carried out at several levels: from the holistic iconic system (German). ikonisches Bild-System) to individual figures and morphemes of the image (German. Figura/Bild-Morpheme), taking into account parameters such as light, perspective, contrast, and other visual characteristics. The first stage of synthesis is aimed at determining the general function of the text and establishing its type (German). Textsorte), as well as identifying the relationship between visual and verbal information from the perspective of the overall textual and semantic structure, as well as visualization methods. This stage also includes an analysis of the intertextual connections between hypertext and discourse. The final stage of synthesis is the integration of the obtained results into a comprehensive assessment. The researcher must formulate a final judgment on the communicative effect of CT, assessing the correlation between the communicative intention and the achieved result, the conformity of the text structure to its type, the nature of the thematic development, and stylistic adequacy (aesthetic aspect) [9, pp. 248–252].

Thus, the presented model provides a comprehensive toolkit for describing the phenomenon of CT, its verbal and visual components, and their interrelationships, which enables the analysis of complex semiotic systems. Furthermore, within the framework of this model, F. Grosse constitutes images as a full-fledged object of linguistic analysis, using linguistic categories as a methodological guide. In particular, F. Grosse attempts to segment images into minimal meaningful units, functionally analogous to linguistic ones [9, pp. 40–97], and applies this segmentation in the linguistic image analysis she developed.

At the same time, a significant discrepancy in the terminological apparatus with the bildlinguistic concept of H. Stöckl and his colleagues is particularly noteworthy, as noted in one of the reviews of this monograph [15, p. 37]. The key difference is as follows:
F. Grosse understands and interprets the term "bildlinguistics" in her work not in a metaphorical, figurative sense, as H. Stöckl and other founders of the field do, but in a direct, literal sense. In fact, F. Grosse attempted to impose the traditional linguistic framework (in particular, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics), developed for natural language, directly on the fundamentally different phenomenon of visuality, in order to make it accessible for linguistic description, following the model of the description of linguistic
structures - by constructing direct structural and functional analogies with established levels of language.

H. Diekmannschenke, M. Klemm, H. Stöckl and other authors in their seminal work of 2011 proceed from a fundamentally different theoretical position: the sign systems of images and natural language are different semiotic phenomena, differing structurally, semantically and pragmatically [7, p. 9]. This is precisely why the authors insist on a metaphorical, figurative understanding of the term "bildlinguistics" - not as a literal "linguistics of images", which implies a direct transfer of linguistic categories to visual material, but as a special interdisciplinary study of the complex, multi-level relationships between language and image as part of holistic creolized texts - however, with the use of linguistic methods. In this sense, it can be said that F. Grosse's approach is more "radical" linguistic than the approach of H. Stöckl and other representatives of this direction.

Both approaches have now proven their validity in empirical studies of creolized texts. The second part of the 2011 collection by H. Diekmannschenke, M. Klemm, and H. Stöckl consists entirely of descriptions of such studies—not only CT studies with static images, but also with dynamic ones.

Among the relatively new studies, one can note the work «Images – Signs – Language» (German:. «"Bilder – Schilder – Sprache"») I. Schulze, where the semiotics of public space (streets, shopping centers) is analyzed as a multimodal landscape: the author analyzes the complex interaction of images, signs (as physical objects) and language in the urban environment, taking the bildlinguistic approach as a theoretical and methodological foundation - also directly pointing to the use of the analysis parameters proposed by F. Grosse [17, p. 13].

 

Conclusion

The analysis demonstrates the conceptual compatibility and methodological productivity of the bildlinguistic approach to studying creolized texts within the Russian linguistic paradigm. It has been established that bildlinguistics, developing the fundamental ideas of G. Kress and T. van Leeuwen's theory of multimodality, demonstrates significant conceptual commonality with the Russian approach to creolized (polycode) texts, as both recognize the structural and semantic unity of verbal and nonverbal components within a holistic textual entity. Crucially, unlike the English-language theory of multimodality, which views all modes as equal semiotic resources, bildlinguistics retains an emphasis on the "language-image" opposition, making it conceptually closer to the Russian tradition.

A key theoretical and methodological achievement of the bildlinguistic approach is the concept of the "trinity of imagery," which expands the traditional "verbal-nonverbal" disposition by incorporating a third dimension—mental imagery. This conceptual triad offers a methodological toolkit for overcoming the dichotomous approach and allows for a more complete description of the cognitive mechanisms of processing and integrating information from sources based on various semiotic systems during the semantic perception of creolized texts. Of particular practical significance are the analytical tools developed within bildlinguistics: a systematic taxonomy of linguistic-figurative relationships and parameters for the empirical analysis of images in textual contexts.

Thus, integrating the bildlinguistic approach into the domestic scientific paradigm does not require abandoning existing theoretical foundations for studying creolized texts, but rather presupposes their organic expansion and methodological enrichment. Adapting bildlinguistic terminology and analytical procedures to Russian-language academic discourse opens up prospects for in-depth interdisciplinary study of creolized texts in the context of the increasing complexity of modern communication.

Literature

1. Anisimova E.E. Paralinguistics and text (to the problem of creolized and hybrid texts) // Questions of linguistics.
   1992. No. 1. P. 71–78.
2. Vashunina I.V., Ilyina V.A. Visual representation of verbal characteristics (based on Russian, English, German)
   languages) // Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. 2023. Issue 9, No. 3.
   pp. 19–26. DOI: 10.22250/24107190_2023_9_3_19.
3. Vashunina I.V. Creolized Text: Semantic Perception. Collective Monograph / Ed. I.V. Vashunina. Editorial Team: E.F. Tarasov, A.A. Nistratov, M.O. Matveev. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2020. 206 p.
   ISBN 978-5-6045633-1-1.
4. Eiger G.V., Yukht V.L. On the construction of a typology of texts // Text linguistics: materials of the scientific conference at the M. Thorez Moscow State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages. Moscow, 1974. Part I. P. 103–109.
5. Sorokin Yu.A., Tarasov E.F. Creolized texts and their communicative function // Optimization of speech impact.
   M.: Higher School, 1990. Pp. 180–186.
6. Bubenhofer N. Visual Linguistics: Pladoyer für ein neues
   Forschungsfeld / N. Bubenhofer // Visualisierung sprachlicher Daten: Visual Linguistics – Praxis – Tools / eds. N. Bubenhofer, M. Kupietz. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing, 2018, pp. 25–62. DOI: 10.17885/heiup.345.474.
7. Diekmannshenke H., Klemm M., Stöckl H. (Hrsg.). Bildlinguistik.
   Theorien – Methoden – Fallbeispiele. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2011. 375 S. (Philologische Studien und Quellen; Bd. 228). ISBN 978-3-503-12259-2.
8. Fix U. Bilder wahrnehmen, ohne zu sehen? Bildlichkeit in der Audiodeskription von Hörfilmen // Bildlinguistik. Theorien – Methoden – Fallbeispiele / Hrsg. H. Diekmannshenke, M. Klemm, H. Stöckl. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2011, pp. 303–329. (Philologische Studien und Quellen; Bd. 228).
   ISBN 978-3-503-12259-2.
9. Große F. Bild-Linguistik. Grundbegriffe und Methoden der linguistischen Bildanalyse in Text- und Diskursumgebungen. Frankfurt am Main; Berlin; Bern; Bruxelles; New York; Oxford; Wien: Peter Lang, 2011. 301 S. (Germanistische Arbeiten zu Sprache und Kulturgeschichte; Bd. 50). ISBN 978-3-653-04565-9.
   DOI: 10.3726/978-3-653-04565-9.
10. Kress G. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010. 212 p. ISBN 978-0-415-32060-3 (hbk), ISBN 978-0-415-32061-0 (pbk), ISBN 978-0-203-97003-4 (ebk).
11. Kress G. Reading images: Multimodality, representation and new
    media // Information Design Journal + Document Design. 2004. Vol. 12, No. 2.
    P. 110–119. DOI: 10.1075/idjdd.12.2.03kre. ISSN 0142-5471.
12. Kress G., van Leeuwen T. Front Pages: (The Critical) Analysis of Newspaper Layout // Approaches to Media Discourse / eds. A. Bell, P. Garrett. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998, pp. 186–219.
13. Kress G., van Leeuwen T. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold, 2001. 142 p. ISBN 0-340-66282-1 (hb), ISBN 0-340-60877-3 (pb).
14. Kress G., van Leeuwen T. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2006. 291 p. ISBN 978-0-415-31914-0 (hbk),
    ISBN 978-0-415-31915-7 (pbk), ISBN 978-0-203-61972-8 (ebk).
15. Müller CM. [Review] // Zeitschrift für Rezensionen zur germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft. 2013. Bd. 5, H. 1. S. 36–45. Rec. in the book: Diekmannshenke H., Klemm M., Stöckl H. (Hg.). Bildlinguistik. Theorien – Methoden – Fallbeispiele. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2011; Große F. Bild-Linguistik. Grundbegriffe und Methoden der linguistischen Bildanalyse in Text- und Diskursumgebungen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011. DOI: 10.1515/zrs-2013-0008.
16. Sachs-Hombach K. Das Bild als kommunikatives Medium: Elemente einer allgemeinen Bildwissenschaft. 3., überarbeitete Neuauflage. Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag, 2013. 366 S. ISBN 978-3-86962-084-8.
17. Schulze I. Bilder – Schilder – Sprache: Empirische Studien zur Text-Bild-Semiotik im öffentlichen Raum. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto, 2019. 251 S. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik; Bd. 567). ISBN 978-3-8233-8298-0.
    ISSN 0564–7959.
18. Stöckl H. Die Sprache im Bild – Das Bild in der Sprache: Zur Verknüpfung von Sprache und Bild im massenmedialen Text. Konzepte · Theorien · Analysemethoden. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. 421 S.
    (Linguistik - Impulse & Tendenzen; Bd. 3). ISBN 3-11-018027-8. ISSN 1612–8702.

References

1. Anisimova EE. Paralinguistics and text (on the problem of realized and hybrid texts) // Voprosy yazykoznaniya. 1992. No. 1. P. 71–78.
2. Eiger GV, Yukht VL. On the construction of a typology of texts // Text linguistics: materials of a scientific conference at the M. Toreza Moscow State Pedagogical Institute of Languages.
   M., 1974. Ch. IS 103–109.
3. Sorokin Yu.A. Realization of texts and their communicative
   function / Yu.A. Sorokin, E.F. Tarasov // Optimization of speech action.
   M.: Vysshaya shkola, 1990. S. 180–186.
4. Vashunina IV. (responsible ed.) Realized text: Semantic perception. Collective monograph / Ed. coll.: E.F. Tarasov, A.A. Nistratov, M.O. Matveyev. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2020. 206 pp. ISBN 978-5-6045633-1-1.
5. Vashunina IV, Il'ina VA. Visual representation of verbal characteristics (based on the Russian, English, and German languages) // Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. 2023. Issue 9, No. 3. pp. 19–26.
   DOI: 10.22250/24107190_2023_9_3_19.
6. Bubenhofer N. Visual Linguistics: Pladoyer für ein neues
   Forschungsfeld / N. Bubenhofer // Visualisierung sprachlicher Daten: Visual Linguistics – Praxis – Tools / eds. N. Bubenhofer, M. Kupietz. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing, 2018, pp. 25–62. DOI: 10.17885/heiup.345.474.
7. Diekmannshenke H., Klemm M., Stöckl H. (Hrsg.). Bildlinguistik.
   Theorien – Methoden – Fallbeispiele. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2011. 375 S. (Philologische Studien und Quellen; Bd. 228). ISBN 978-3-503-12259-2.
8. Fix U. Bilder wahrnehmen, ohne zu sehen? Bildlichkeit in der Audiodeskription von Hörfilmen // Bildlinguistik. Theorien – Methoden – Fallbeispiele / Hrsg. H. Diekmannshenke, M. Klemm, H. Stöckl. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2011, pp. 303–329. (Philologische Studien und Quellen; Bd. 228).
   ISBN 978-3-503-12259-2.
9. Große F. Bild-Linguistik. Grundbegriffe und Methoden der linguistischen Bildanalyse in Text- und Diskursumgebungen. Frankfurt am Main; Berlin; Bern; Bruxelles; New York; Oxford; Wien: Peter Lang, 2011. 301 S. (Germanistische Arbeiten zu Sprache und Kulturgeschichte; Bd. 50). ISBN 978-3-653-04565-9.
   DOI: 10.3726/978-3-653-04565-9.
10. Kress G. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010. 212 p. ISBN 978-0-415-32060-3 (hbk), ISBN 978-0-415-32061-0 (pbk), ISBN 978-0-203-97003-4 (ebk).
11. Kress G. Reading images: Multimodality, representation and new media // Information Design Journal + Document Design. 2004. Vol. 12, No. 2. P. 110–119. DOI: 10.1075/idjdd.12.2.03kre. ISSN 0142-5471.
12. Kress G., van Leeuwen T. Front Pages: (The Critical) Analysis of Newspaper Layout // Approaches to Media Discourse / eds. A. Bell, P. Garrett. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998, pp. 186–219.
13. Kress G., van Leeuwen T. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold, 2001. 142 p. ISBN 0-340-66282-1 (hb), ISBN 0-340-60877-3 (pb).
14. Kress G., van Leeuwen T. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2006. 291 p. ISBN 978-0-415-31914-0 (hbk),
    ISBN 978-0-415-31915-7 (pbk), ISBN 978-0-203-61972-8 (ebk).
15. Müller CM. // Zeitschrift für Rezensionen zur germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft. 2013. Bd. 5, H. 1. S. 36–45. Rec. in the book: Diekmannshenke H., Klemm M., Stöckl H. (Hg.). Bildlinguistik. Theorien – Methoden – Fallbeispiele. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2011; Große F. Bild-Linguistik. Grundbegriffe und Methoden der linguistischen Bildanalyse in Text- und Diskursumgebungen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011. DOI: 10.1515/zrs-2013-0008.
16. Sachs-Hombach K. Das Bild als kommunikatives Medium: Elemente einer allgemeinen Bildwissenschaft. 3., überarbeitete Neuauflage. Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag, 2013. 366 S. ISBN 978-3-86962-084-8.
17. Schulze I. Bilder – Schilder – Sprache: Empirische Studien zur Text-Bild-Semiotik im öffentlichen Raum. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto, 2019. 251 S. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik; Bd. 567). ISBN 978-3-8233-8298-0.
    ISSN 0564–7959.
18. Stöckl H. Die Sprache im Bild – Das Bild in der Sprache: Zur Verknüpfung von Sprache und Bild im massenmedialen Text. Konzepte · Theorien · Analysemethoden. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. 421 S.
    (Linguistik - Impulse & Tendenzen; Bd. 3). ISBN 3-11-018027-8. ISSN 1612–8702.