visual communication

ARTICLE

Multiliteracies: how readers interpret

political cartoons
ELISABETH EL REFAIE
Cardiff University, UK

ABSTRACT

Using a small-scale pilot study of readers responses to three British

newspaper cartoons as an example, this article explores the ways in which
readers make sense of these multimodal texts. The findings of the study,
which also included interviews with the three creators of the cartoons,
suggest that interpreting cartoons is a complex process that requires
people to draw on a whole range of different literacies. These include a
broad knowledge of past and current events, a familiarity with the cartoon
genre, a vast repertoire of cultural symbols, and experience of thinking
analytically about real-world events and circumstances.
KEY WORDS

audience research new literacies newspapers political cartoons

visual literacy

INTRODUCTION

In an essay about the state of British cartooning, the artist Ralph Steadman
(1997) complained that the cartoon is now generally regarded as little more
than a readily digested pictorial version of the written word, intended for
those who do not wish to read, who cannot read, or who just will not
understand (p. 23). In fact, many academic scholars currently working in
this field seem to share the view of the cartoon as a relatively simple and
readily digested medium. In her study of cartoon representations of
Saddam Hussein, for instance, Conners (1998) confidently asserts that
cartoons can often be understood across cultures, ages, and levels of
intelligence (p. 97). This, she believes, is due to the common use in cartoons
of metaphors and symbols which simplify ideas and thus enable readers to
interpret the images quickly and easily (p. 100). While agreeing with
Conners on the prevalence of symbols and metaphors in cartoons, I believe
that, far from making the interpretation of cartoons easier, this reliance on
non-literal thought processes actually contributes to their complexity.
SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC):
http://vcj.sagepub.com Copyright The Author(s), 2009.
Reprints and permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalspermissions.nav/
Vol 8(2): 181205 DOI 10.1177/1470357209102113

The widespread view of the cartoon as a straightforward medium

might also go some way towards explaining the conspicuous lack of research
into what audiences actually do with this genre. Although since the 1980s
there has been a steadily growing number of academic studies of cartoon
representations of various social and political issues,1 these analysts still tend
to regard the meaning of cartoons as self-evident and to take the validity of
their own interpretations more or less for granted (e.g. Diamond, 2002;
Koetzle and Brunell, 1996; McKenna, 2001; Michelmore, 2000). This is all the
more surprising given the fact that comics scholars, who have explored the
semiotics of this closely related art form in great detail, have always regarded
artists and readers as creative partners in the process of making meaning
(e.g. Eisner, 1985; Frahm, 2003; McCloud, 1993).2
The aim of this article is to use the example of a small-scale pilot
study of audience responses to three British cartoons in order to begin to
understand how people interpret these multimodal texts. More specifically, I
would like to address the question of what competences are necessary in
order to read political cartoons, and how these competences are linked to
socio-cultural practices.
Section one explores the concept of visual literacy and goes on to
describe the growing field of New Literacy Studies. This approach challenges
traditional definitions of literacy as a collection of static and decontextualized skills, and focuses instead on the social practices that enable people
to make meaning out of different types of texts in different contexts. Seen
from this perspective, reading a political cartoon involves far more than just
the ability to identify the real-life referents of visual representations.
The second section of the article discusses the political cartoon as a
specific genre, which, while sharing some formal features with gag cartoons
and comics, has its own historical provenance and communicative purposes.
What makes political cartoons unique is the way in which they typically use a
fantasy scenario to comment upon an aspect of topical social, political, or
cultural reality; in LeRoys (1970) apt words, they are complicated puzzles
mixing current events with analogies (p. 39).
The final section analyses a pilot study of how readers interpret
political cartoons, starting with a description of the data and methods used
and explaining my decision to consult the makers of the three cartoons used
in the study, Nicholas Garland, Dave Brown and Steve MacMurty, about their
intentions. The results of the pilot study show that, in the case of political
cartoons, interpretation is a matter of drawing on many different types of
literacy, ranging from a familiarity with cartoon conventions and a broad
knowledge of current events to the ability to draw analogies. Although all
eight participants were fellow academics from a middle-class background
with regular newspaper reading habits, their responses were surprisingly
different, not just with regard to how they interpreted the cartoons, but also
to what they actually saw when looking at these images.

182

Visual Communication 8(2)

V I S U A L L I T E R A C Y, M U L T I L I T E R A C I E S

In a world increasingly dominated by visual forms of communication, many

scholars believe that the ability to make sense of visual texts is becoming ever
more important (e.g. Sturken and Cartwright, 2001: 1) and there are regular
calls for visual literacy to be taught in schools and further education.
However, there seems to be little agreement over what skills might be
construed as constituting literacy when it comes to visual materials such as
the political cartoon.
In its most basic sense, visual literacy can be said to refer to an
adequate capacity to identify images and to parse them according to the ways
they refer to the world (Elkins, 2003: 137). According to Messaris (1994,
1997, 1998), the recognition of pictorial images is based on peoples ordinary,
everyday visual perception and does not require any special competences.3 It
is precisely because images are so close to our real-world perceptions that
they can be used as an especially elusive means of audience manipulation
(Messaris, 1998: 74, 75); visual literacy training should therefore, he reasons,
concentrate on increasing peoples awareness of visual artistry and their
resistance to manipulation.
Messaris confidence in peoples ability to comprehend images seems
to be partly due to his focus on film and photography, which at least in
Western cultures are generally considered to be the most realistic of all
visual genres.4 Cartooning, by contrast, always involves a degree of abstraction, or, as McCloud (1993) puts it: amplification through simplification
(p. 30). Abstraction can sometimes aim for pure form without meaning, but
most cartoonists tend towards iconic abstraction, which involves reducing
resemblance in order to amplify meaning (pp. 50ff). The greater the degree
of iconic abstraction, the more interpretative work and knowledge of
cultural conventions are required on the part of the viewer. Seen from this
perspective, the concept of visual literacy would also have to include the
ability to understand at a conscious level the visual language used within a
particular culture or cultures (Zimmer and Zimmer, 1978: 21).
The claims Messaris (1997) makes about the ease with which everybody is able to read images is also based on his assumption that the visual
mode is essentially presentational, not propositional, and that it is unsuitable
as a means of expressing causality or analogy, or indeed any other nonspatial relationship (p. xviii). Many researchers in the field of visual rhetoric,
by contrast, strongly refute the long-standing Western prejudice which
assumes that pictures merely signify by resembling objects in the real world
(Kenney and Scott, 2003: 19). Instead, they insist that images can also express
all kinds of non-literal and symbolic meanings (see also Huxford, 2001;
Morris, 1993). Similarly, social semioticians (Jewitt and Oyama, 2001; Kress
and Van Leeuwen, 1996, 2001) regard the visual mode as able to realize many
of the same complex meanings as verbal language, albeit in different forms.
According to these researchers, the visual mode possesses a kind of

El Refaie: Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons

183

grammar, which determines how visual elements combine into a

meaningful whole. Until quite recently, visual communication was safely in
the hands of a few experts, but today most of us are involved not just in
consuming but also in producing visual materials. Kress and Van Leeuwen
(1996) predict that, as a result of this development, the domain of visual
communication will gradually become more constrained by normative rules,
and that people who have not learned to use visual grammar in a socially
acceptable way will soon be severely disadvantaged, particularly in the
workplace (p. 3).
For writers on visual culture, the focus tends to be on issues of
interpretation: the aim of visual literacy training is to increase awareness of
the power of images by developing a critical understanding of the social
functions and effects of visual practices. Schirato and Webb (2004), for
instance, argue that visual literacy should be seen as a kind of reading, in the
sense that it goes beyond the habitual ways of seeing and requires various
skills in framing, selecting, editing and decoding the visual material that
surrounds us (p. 57). It can thus be seen as a way of allowing the viewer to
move from tacit looking to skilled understanding (pp. 2, 3).
This focus on visual practices brings visual culture theorists into close
proximity with new literacies scholars, who have challenged the traditional
view of literacy as the decontextualized, psychologically defined ability to
read and write. Since reading always involves particular types of text, and
every text can be read in many different ways and on many different levels,
these scholars believe that a definition of literacy must, at the very least, be
extended to include the multiple abilities to read texts of certain types in
certain ways or to certain levels (Gee, 1996: 41). They are also interested in
how people are socialized into using literacy in different contexts for
different purposes (Pahl and Rowsell, 2006: 3). Seen from this perspective,
issues of social identity, power relations and ideology become central to the
argument. This approach is also new in the sense that it takes into
consideration the multiliteracy practices that have occurred as a result of
technological and institutional changes (Lankshear and Knobel, 2003: 16)
and the emergence of novel types of post-typographic texts (Tyner, 1998).
Although the various definitions of visual literacy and the concept of
multiliteracies reveal important differences in emphasis, they are not
necessarily all mutually exclusive. In the discussion of my data, I draw on
insights from several of these different approaches in order to consider the
multiple literacy practices involved in reading political cartoons.
THE POLITICAL CARTOON GENRE

The political cartoon constitutes a very specific genre, with its own history,
distinctive styles, conventions and communicative purposes. It is an
illustration, usually in a single panel, published on the editorial or comments
pages of a newspaper. Most commonly, cartoons address a current political
issue or event, a social trend, or a famous personality, in a way that takes a
184

Visual Communication 8(2)

stand or presents a particular point of view. Although political cartoons are

not always humorous, they do generally contain an element of irony or at
least something incongruous or surprising.
The antecedents of the political cartoon were anonymously produced
woodcuts, which typically depicted scenes of a political or religious nature
and were hawked around the streets of 17th-century Europe. Many of these
woodcuts contained words as well as images and there is evidence that some
artists even employed speed lines and word-balloons (Sabin, 1996). The
invention of copperplate engraving and, in the mid-1800s, of facsimile
reproduction facilitated the mass production of more detailed images, and
the early cartoons became increasingly humorous and satirical.
The term cartoon was first used in its current meaning in the mid19th century, when the British satirical monthly Punch used it as a title for a
series of humorous illustrations lambasting the governments plans for a new
lavish Parliament building and contrasting this lavishness with the extreme
poverty of many ordinary people (Kleeman, 2006). At a time when the
newspaper was still a predominantly verbal medium, cartoons created a
visual sensation that is hard to imagine now, and many cartoonists of the late
19th century and early 20th century came to be regarded as influential and
highly respected political commentators (Walker, 1978). Since the spread of
photography and television, however, newspaper cartoons no longer
dominate our perceptions of social and political issues as they once did, and
they seem to have lost some of their former status (Jensen, 1997; Rowson,
nd). In the UK, many local newspapers and tabloids now tend to publish
humorous illustrations and single-panel visual gags rather than cartoons of
an explicitly political nature. Cartoonist Steve MacMurty, for instance, told
me that about 90 per cent of his drawings for the tabloid Daily Mail are
bright, funny cartoons, while only about 10 per cent are trying to be hardhitting political cartoons*. But particularly in times of social or political
tensions and upheaval, as for instance in the USA after the terrorist
attacks on 11 September 2001, individual political cartoons can still evoke
surprisingly strong reactions (Lamb, 2004).
In Western cultures, at least, the use of literary references in political
cartoons is rapidly declining (Mumford, 2001: xi). Instead, cartoonists now
generally rely on widely shared cultural symbols and metaphors from
popular culture and from sport, which often seem so natural that we accept
them through barely conscious thought processes (Edwards, 1997: 29; El
Refaie, 2003: 83). In fact, as Fischer (1996) points out, cartoons must exploit
conventions in fundamental harmony with the cultural literacy of the public
or risk almost certain failure (p. 122). However, every cartoonist will probably
have a slightly different concept of what constitutes cultural literacy, and this
may not correspond with the actual cultural literacies of his or her public.
* All the quotations of the cartoonists Steve MacMurty, Nicholas Garland and Dave
Brown are taken from our telephone conversations in June and July 2005.
El Refaie: Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons

185

Political cartoons generally operate on two distinct levels: on one

level, they tell an imaginary story about a make-believe world, while on a
second, more abstract level, they refer to real-life events and characters. This
relationship between the two levels of meaning is essentially metaphorical,
inviting people to map properties from a more tangible area of reality onto
one that is more abstract. A viewer who understands a cartoon on the level of
its fictional narrative may nevertheless struggle to discern its real-life
referents, since this kind of interpretation requires some interest in public
affairs and knowledge of politics.
The metaphorical combination of the real and the imaginary is one of
the features of cartoons that distinguish them from other newspaper images
such as press photographs and illustrative drawings. It also to some extent
sets political cartoons apart from the closely related genre of comics, which
generally tend to remain within the realm of the fantastic, or, if they refer to
real-life events, do so in a more literal manner (Dittmer, 2005).5 Another
important difference between comics and political cartoons concerns the
way in which they express sequence and chronology. Comics are by their very
nature a form of sequential art (Eisner, 1985), where the shape, size and
arrangement of panels and the gutter between them are important resources
for expressing narrative sequence and the passing of time. The political
cartoon, by contrast, is generally contained within a single border, the main
function of which, according to Baldry and Thibault (2006), is to signal a
separation between the dramatic cartoon world and the real world of serious
news reporting (p. 17).
In spite of this, Edwards (1997) believes that political cartoons are
also able to function as narratives since they encourage viewers to complete
in their heads what is suggested by the depicted moment. This process relies
on the natural and universal tendency of human beings to seek closure
(Zakia, 2002). A sense of action can also be encouraged through the
depiction of movement that is frozen in the instance of representation
(Schirato and Webb, 2004: 87) and the use of vectors: strong, often diagonal
lines formed obliquely by depicted objects or people, which indicate the
direction of an action (Kress and Van Leeuwen, 1996: 4378). Some cartoons
also use conventionalized motion lines (Horn, 1998: 136) leading to or from a
moving element.
If readers are willing and able to solve the mental puzzle that every
cartoon poses, this can give them a real sense of satisfaction and sometimes
provoke a humorous response (Smith, 1996). Political cartoons are often able
to expose a certain kind of essential truth, which can encourage viewers to
see things from a new angle. The suggestive nature of the genre also allows
cartoonists to be more forthright in their criticism than would be acceptable
in journalistic writings and to avoid the charge of libel (Templin, 1999: 21).
Conversely, the failure to make meaning out of a cartoon can be a very
frustrating experience. As Nicholas Garland observed when showing his
work to his journalist colleagues, some of them seemed completely
186

Visual Communication 8(2)

bewildered by the unique language of cartoons: it is as if they are puzzled by

the cartoons . . . they seem to regard them as some kind of test of their
intelligence or their imagination.
A S T U D Y O F C A R T O O N I N T E R P R E TAT I O N S

Data and methods

The three cartoons used in this pilot study (Figures 13) were taken from the
liberal Independent and the more conservative Daily Telegraph, which are
both aimed at a middle-class, professional readership, and from the rightwing tabloid Daily Mail. I selected the cartoons partly because of the
different political affiliations of the newspapers they appeared in,6 and partly
because they represent three different types of political cartoons, in terms of
both their visual style and the degree to which they make use of metaphor.
In my choice of data, I also wanted to avoid cartoons that referred to
obscure events and personalities with which the respondents might not have
been familiar. For this reason, I used three cartoons from 15 July 2004, the
day after the publication of the Butler Report on the inquiry (chaired by
Lord Butler) into the British Governments use of intelligence in order to
justify the invasion of Iraq. Both the report itself and the events leading up to
its publication had been big media events, and so the subject of the three

Figure 1 mac (Stan McMurty), Daily Mail, 15 July 2008. Daily Mail. Reproduced with
permission of Stan McMurty and the Daily Mail.

El Refaie: Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons

187

Figure 2 Nicholas Garland, The Daily Telegraph, 15 July 2008. The Daily Telegraph.
Reproduced with permission of Nicholas Garland and The Daily Telegraph.

cartoons was likely still to be very present in the minds of most people living
in Britain at the time.
The participants in the study were all academics from a relatively
homogeneous, highly educated middle-class background, whom I chose
deliberately because I thought they would be likely to share an interest in
political affairs. Of the four men and four women interviewed, ranging in age
from 29 to 64 years, five were British, one was of Spanish, one of Catalan and
one of Italian origin. I expected the interviewees different cultural
backgrounds and levels of experience of and engagement with British society
and culture to have some bearing upon the interpretation process.
All eight participants described themselves as being interested in
current affairs and as quite or very regular newspaper readers. Three respondents regularly read The Guardian, one occasionally reads The Independent
and another The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph. The other three
respondents read a whole range of newspapers, including some foreign ones.
All but two of the respondents said that they (almost) always looked at the
cartoons when they were reading the paper, and all of them acknowledged
that they sometimes found them quite hard to understand, particularly if
they had not been following the news or if, in the case of one of the nonBritish respondents, the cartoon related to UK politics. Although only one of
188

Visual Communication 8(2)

Figure 3 Dave Brown, The Independent, 15 July 2004. Dave Brown. Reproduced with
permission.

the respondents, D, had seen any of the cartoons used in this study before the
interview (specifically Figure 3), all the participants were thus reasonably
well acquainted with the genre and the conventions and styles associated
with it. This was confirmed during the interviews, when several respondents
explicitly referred to what they thought cartoons are normally about.
Respondents were interviewed individually for between 30 and 45
minutes each. In order to preserve their anonymity, responses were coded
with a letter from A to H. The interviews took place two to six weeks after the
publication date of the cartoons. One by one, the cartoons were shown to
the interviewee, starting with Figure 2, which was first displayed without the
context of the page it appeared on, since I wanted to discover whether it
made any sense to viewers outside its context. With the other cartoons
(Figures 1 and 3), I used the whole page (or double spread in the case of the
tabloid Daily Mail). In each case, the interviewee was first asked to describe
what he or she could see in the cartoon, without trying to analyse it.
Occasionally, I would ask additional questions in order to elicit more details,
such as: Where do you think this scene might be taking place? How would
you describe the mood/feelings of the depicted characters? Only after the
interviewees had described their own responses to the cartoon would I ask
them to say what they thought the cartoonist wanted to communicate. I
encouraged them to read any of the headlines or articles that they would
normally read in conjunction with the cartoon before attempting an
interpretation. In a final step, I asked respondents to describe their overall
El Refaie: Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons

189

emotional reaction to the cartoons perceived message and to say whether or

not they found it amusing.
In the telephone conversations with the three cartoonists, I focused
particularly on those aspects of the respective cartoon which had evoked the
most divergent responses from the research participants. Although I do not
consider the artists to be the ultimate arbiters of the meaning of their work, it
proved illuminating to compare and confront the meanings intended by the
cartoonists with the different readings of the cartoons by actual viewers. It
was also interesting to explore the extent to which the artists were aware of
the many literacies required in order for readers to interpret cartoons.
DISCUSSION

During the interviews, I always asked the respondents to describe what they
could see before attempting an overall interpretation of the cartoons. This
made it easier to distinguish between some of the competences involved in
the interpretation process. These multiliteracies are explored by focusing on
the following five questions: How do readers: (a) establish the real-world
referents of a cartoon; (b) impose a narrative on the cartoon image; (c)
interpret the facial expressions of the depicted participants; (d) understand
textimage relations; and (e) establish metaphorical connections between the
fictional scene of the cartoon and a political argument?

(a) Achieving reference

In order for a viewer to be able to read any pictorial image, he or she must first
of all identify what in language would be the lexis, i.e. the depicted objects,
places, people and events (Van Leeuwen, 2001). But even at this basic level of
achieving reference, several different kinds of literacies seem to be involved.
Compared to the other two examples, the imagery in Figure 1 is quite
detailed and realistic. When discussing this cartoon, all the respondents
concurred in their description of rows and rows of graves and of a destroyed
city in which there is still a lot of unrest and destruction. Like participant E,
they appeared to recognize immediately that the image represented a
landscape of conflict:
Extract 1
It seems to me its a field of tombstones. I interpret these as being the
stones of the people who have died since the invasion of Iraq. And in
the background you see the destroyed country, the buildings and
flames and smoke, and I think that may be a tank on the left-hand
side, Im not sure. But generally a landscape, a desolate, appalling
landscape of conflict. Its reminiscent of course of the war graves of
the First World War. But unlike those which are in a sort of lovely
green lawn, then here the background is of ongoing conflict. And it
has to be Iraq because of the buildings, the minarets, and of course
the figure in the front. (E)
190

Visual Communication 8(2)

The identification of the general setting thus seemed to rely on viewers

familiarity with media images of modern warfare, particularly the bombing
raids on Baghdad. Because the overall scene was so familiar, the identification of individual visual objects, such as a tank, was not essential. The city
in the background was very quickly identified by everybody as being
Oriental, since several well-known symbols of Islam are represented: weve
got the usual silhouettes of mosques, minarets (A). Once the context of the
Butler Report had been established, the Oriental city was specified further by
all respondents as being Iraqi. This demonstrates that, in the case of political
cartoons, even achieving reference requires a mixture of general visual
literacy in the sense of being able to identify a tank, or flames and smoke
and more specific cultural and political literacies being able to identify the
city as Oriental or Iraqi.
This example also reveals that cultural literacy is linked to peoples
background and experience. Three of the four British interviewees (A, C, E)
strongly associated the symmetrical rows of graves with war cemeteries,
which, as Extract 1 demonstrates, enabled these individuals to perceive a
theme of contrast in the cartoon which was apparently not salient for
the Spanish, Catalan and Italian informants. In fact, for respondent C the
association of war cemeteries was so strong that he initially thought
the gravestones might be for the British and American soldiers. He later
explained this misapprehension as resulting from a cultural problem: I
dont really know what Iraqi gravestones look like. That was the thing, it
looked Western to me (C).
The figure in the foreground of Figure 1 is quite small and shown
from behind, so that his features are not very clearly visible. All but two of
the respondents agreed immediately that this figure is meant to represent a
generic type, a cleric (C), a mullah (B), an all-purpose Arab (A), rather
than a specific individual. After briefly considering the possibility that the
figure might be meant to look like Bin Laden, E also quickly decided that
the figure represented the Iraqi people as a whole. If it were meant to be
somebody, then it would have to be a bit more distinctive. The recognition of
the cartoon character as an all-purpose Arab by all of the respondents would
indicate that they were aware of the cartoon convention which determines
that small size and a view from behind, combined with stereotypical features
and a lack of distinctive detail, typically point to a generic rather than specific
referential meaning. This familiarity with generic norms and conventions is
another important aspect of cultural literacy.
Even though the style used in Figure 2 is more cartoonish and less
detailed than Figure 1, none of the respondents had any trouble identifying
the drawing as that of a cat. However, in contrast to the generic Arab figure in
Figure 1, the respondents expected the cat in Figure 2 to represent a specific
person, and they were irritated and confused by their inability in this case to
ascertain whom the cartoonist intended to portray:

El Refaie: Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons

191

Extract 2
My problem is I cant identify the cat as any particular person.
Normally, in political cartoons, you can actually identify the figure,
even if its in a sort of mythological or animal form, as a person. Im
not identifying that cat visually with anybody. So Im left asking what
exactly who exactly its meant to represent. (C)

Only one respondent (G) was prepared to identify the cat as possibly
representing Tony Blair on the basis of a physical resemblance: the eyes and
its very thin, very marked features. Caricatures tend to represent the more
permanent traits of physiognomy and of particular facial tics; apparently, it is
often the mouth, the eyes and the eyebrows that function as the most
important signals of identity (Moyle, 2000: 13). As Walker (1978) points out:
cartoonists quickly develop and fix a visual image of particular politicians,
and cartoonists tend to mine each others ideas (p. 8).7 However, some
cartoonists develop a very individual shorthand style when drawing famous
politicians and it is therefore hardly surprising that people who are not
familiar with a particular artists work will struggle to recognize some
caricatures. The respondents all indicated that they were unfamiliar with the
way Nicholas Garland normally caricatures the then Prime Minister.
By contrast, the caricature of Tony Blair in Figure 3 was recognized
immediately by seven out of eight respondents, who mentioned the typical
rather forced smile (D) and the pronounced grin and ears (B). Dave Brown
explained that he enjoyed the fact that Tony Blair is still instantly
recognizable, even though he is almost completely covered in whitewash. In
the case of Lord Butler, the artist conceded that Butler isnt the most
recognizable person for caricaturing, so the idea of him as Tonys butler was
an ideal way to lead people in. This figure was described by all the
respondents as a sort of butler or manservant, and five identified him as Lord
Butler, either immediately or else after spotting the name in the accompanying article. But Brown was clearly right in assuming that Lord Butlers
face is not so widely recognizable: only respondent B referred to a particular
physical feature (his shiny nose) when identifying Butler.
Figure 3 offers another good example of the way in which the recognition of some visual elements depends on familiarity with the symbolism
used by a particular artist. As Dave Brown explained: the smoking Y-fronts
lying in front of the bath were a sort of visual rendition of the expression
liar, liar, pants on fire and represented a running gag that had started at the
time of the Iraq war and that referred to the fact that Blair had lied over
weapons of mass destruction. The dossier was intended to put out the fire,
so in this cartoon the pants are smoking in a pool of whitewash. Brown
conceded that this particular verbo-visual joke would only work for viewers
who were familiar with his work.
As it turned out, none of the informants had been following Browns
running gag, and none of them were able to even recognize the scorched
192

Visual Communication 8(2)

Y-fronts, let alone interpret them in any meaningful way. G thought this item
represented the dress of a soldier, with smoke rising from it after a recent
battle. The four British respondents, who were all familiar with Steve Bells
cartoons in The Guardian, referred to his use of Y-fronts to represent John
Major, but they were unsure as to what the connection between the two
might be. They were also unable to decide whether the pants were meant to
be scorched, or soiled.

(b) Reading cartoons as narrative images

As pointed out earlier, Edwards (1997) believes that many political cartoons
are meant to be read as narrative images. Therefore, viewers must not only be
able to read a cartoons visual lexis, but also its visual syntax, the specific
patterns for how meanings are put together in images. According to social
semioticians, visual syntax is generally more flexible than its verbal
counterpart. Particular visual structures are seen to represent a resource or a
meaning potential rather than a strictly prescribed code (Jewitt and Oyama,
2001: 134, 135).
Figure 2 offers a good example of the potential ambiguity of visual
syntax: the main narrative vector could be said to be formed by the
consecutive drawings of cats, in which case the cat would be read as
somersaulting diagonally across the picture. On the other hand, the motion
lines above each individual drawing of the cat encourage a frame by frame
reading of the cats fall, in a straight line from the sky to the ground.
In fact, three of the eight respondents were not even sure whether the
cartoon showed several different cats or the various stages of one cat falling
to the ground. Two of these three people quickly decided that it was one cat,
while one respondent stuck to the view that there were several cats either
falling down or jumping up (H). But even among those respondents who
saw the image as representing one cat, there was some confusion over
whether the cat was falling in a diagonal arc kind of somersaulting (D)
or vertically plummeting from the sky (C). In this latter case, the drawing
was described explicitly in structural terms as a sort of frame by frame
illustration of when a cat falls (A). The frame by frame format is more
typical of comic strips than it is of the editorial cartoon, which characteristically consists of a single-panel drawing, and in this case the frames are
implied rather than actually drawn. A high level of familiarity with the
graphic conventions of the comic strip genre may nevertheless have helped
some readers to interpret this particular cartoon in the way it was intended
by the artist.8
The process of trying to imaginatively activate the characters depicted
in a cartoon and to work out their story was also apparent in the responses
to the drawing in Figure 3. Although there are also other implied stories in
this cartoon, the main narrative vector seems to be formed by the two
characters, the bath and the tub of paint, and reinforced by the pattern of
light and shadow across the back wall. In fact, for several of the respondents
El Refaie: Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons

193

this vector seemed to suggest an action so strongly that they described the
butler figure as walking (C) or running (H) away from the bath, even
though, as Dave Brown pointed out, the butler is not actually depicted as
moving at all; in fact, he is standing still with his back to the bath. Everybody
agreed that the butler had done something to the figure in the bath, although
the exact interpretation of this action and its consequences were dependent
on how participants interpreted the facial expressions of the two figures and
the inscription on the can.

(c) Recognizing displayed emotions

Understanding the meaning of a cartoon often requires a viewers capacity to
interpret gestures and facial expressions, and to attribute emotions to the
depicted characters.9 With regard to facial expression in caricature,
Gombrich (1977) believes that this is one of the most important clues to
which we react instinctively (p. 289). This assumption is apparently
supported by empirical studies, which show that basic emotions are indeed
universally recognized (Ekman, 1999), although culture plays an important
role in mediating the way these are displayed and perceived (Matsumoto et
al., 2003). Moreover, even in real-life situations, we typically need additional
contextual information in order to be able to judge another persons mood or
feelings from his or her facial expression (Messaris, 1994: 16). Of course, the
cartoon viewer is faced with the additional difficulty that here facial
expression is merely suggested through a few simple lines, which are likely to
be more ambiguous than the human face itself.
Some of the responses to the three cartoons reflected substantially
different perceptions of the emotions displayed by the depicted characters.
For instance, when discussing Figure 2, one respondent perceived the cat in
the second to last image to be fairly smug and self-satisfied (C), while the
same picture was described by others as a wince (B) and as expressing a sort
of relief (E) or pain (A). Similarly, the cats expression in the final fame was
interpreted variously as perky (D), smug (E), slightly bemused (A) and as
very concerned about what he has done (G). The respondent who saw the
image as representing several cats seemed to find it particularly difficult to
attribute emotions to them, describing some of them as quite content and
happy and others as quite angry (H).
In the case of the butler in Figure 3, there was a high level of
agreement as to his expression, which was described by everyone as happy/
content, smug, or as pleased with himself . The facial expression of the Blair
caricature, by contrast, was again interpreted somewhat differently by the
individual respondents, which influenced what they thought the cartoonist
might be trying to say. Dave Brown had intended Blair to look a little bit
ambivalent: a smile rather like a grimace. Some of the participants picked up
on this intended ambivalence, describing Blair as smiling, but in a mean,
malicious way (G), or as pleased, but out of touch with reality (D). The
others thought he looked a bit miffed (B), extremely uncomfortable (C), or
194

Visual Communication 8(2)

very angry (H), really enraged . . . gnashing his teeth (F). One respondents
reading of the facial expressions seemed to interfere with his overall
interpretation of the cartoon:
Extract 3
Im not entirely sure why hes [Lord Butler] looking so smug, when I
would have thought that it would be Tony Blair who would have the
grin all over his face. If Tony Blair is supposed to be grinning, I dont
recognize it. So it seems to suggest that Blair isnt entirely happy with
being whitewashed in this way by Lord Butler. (B)

This extract is a particularly clear example of the close relationship between

the way respondents read facial expressions and how they interpreted the
overall narrative meaning of the drawing. The ability to recognize the
emotions displayed by cartoon characters may also be linked to a readers
degree of familiarity with the language of cartooning.

(d) Interpreting textimage relations

Thirty years ago, Barthes (1977) coined the terms anchorage to describe the
way that language is often needed in order to fix the meaning of images, and
relay to refer to wordimage relations in sequential forms of communication, such as comics and film. Since then, scholars have come up with a
whole range of different relationships that can pertain between the verbal
and the visual mode (e.g. Nikolajeva and Scott, 2001; Nodelman, 1988).
McCloud (1993: 153ff), for instance, lists seven different ways in which the
two modes can combine in comics, ranging from word specific or image
specific, where one mode carries the meaning and the other merely adds
non-essential detail, to interdependent, where the combined modes produce
meanings that neither could convey alone. Even though it is possible to
separate verbal and visual meaning for analytic purposes, in reality, in
cartooning the two modes are typically so completely intertwined as to be
virtually inseparable. Words become part of the image and are thus exposed
in their materiality, side by side on the same surface of the paper of the page
(Frahm, 2003).
In early political cartoons, the use of verbal labels to anchor the
meaning of the different elements in political cartoons was very common
indeed (Walker, 1978), and this particular use of text persists to some extent
to this day. The headline BUTLER REPORT on the newspaper in Figure 1,
for instance, is clearly intended to guide the viewer to a particular, specific
interpretation of the depicted scene, which could otherwise have been read as
a more general comment on the occupying forces and their unwillingness to
take any responsibility for Iraqi casualties.
The caption to Figure 1, Guess what, everyone? Nobodys to blame,
has a slightly more complex function, since it introduces a sense of
El Refaie: Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons

195

incongruity that would not be conveyed by the image alone. As Edwards

(1997) points out, identifying the various voices in a political cartoon can be
very complex since different types of (verbal) narrator are possible: the
cartoonist can speak via a caption or other commenting verbal element, or
else through a cartoon character, who in turn may be addressing other
depicted characters or the reader directly (pp. 4852). In this example, the
cartoonist has chosen not to use a speech bubble. Instead, the quotation
marks and the dialogic features of the caption suggest that it is meant to
represent direct speech, and the fact that the figure in the foreground is
depicted with an open mouth seems to indicate that he is the speaker (Baldry
and Thibault, 2006: 11). All but one of the participants in the study
attributed the words to the figure in the foreground and suggested that he is
talking to the tombstones or to the dead, although G thought that the voice
might also be that of the cartoonist trying to involve the reader. Respondent
H assumed instead that the caption represented a sort of dialogue between
two different people.
Figure 2 is a good example of a particular relationship between words
and image, in which verbal expressions, metaphors or idioms are represented
in a striking visual form. This verbalvisual relationship, which is perhaps
best described as the graphic concretization of verbal meaning, seems to be
very common in the political cartoon genre.
According to Nicholas Garland, the cartoon was intended as a
comment on the Prime Ministers ability to get out of tight corners, based on
the simple idea that if you drop a cat it will land on its feet. Interestingly, all
but one of the respondents saw it as the pictorial representation of a proverb,
but only four of them referred to the proverbial ability of cats to land on
their feet, while three informants focused instead on the meanings associated
with the nine lives of a cat. Of these, the two respondents with a Romance
language as their mother tongue, in which cats are said to have seven instead
of nine lives, saw the cat as having used up all its seven lives, which of course
subtly changed the meaning of the cartoon.
The inscription on the tin in Figure 3 seems to be fulfilling several
roles simultaneously. First, it could be described as a straightforward case of
anchorage since it tells the reader that the object in the butlers hand is a tin
of paint. The visual information alone was clearly not sufficient in order for
viewers to recognize the liquid on Blairs body as whitewash: it was initially
described by respondents as water, mud, something sticky or body lotion.
This function only works, of course, if viewers know the meaning of the
word gloss. One of the non-native speakers, for instance, seemed to regard
the word as a synonym for soap.
Second, the words on the tin also evoke an idiomatic verbal expression which is depicted literally in the picture (graphic concretization). The
native English speakers all immediately interpreted the inscription on the tin
as referring to a situation of whitewashing, where someone is trying to cover
up his or her previous mistakes, and applied this to the whole cartoon:10
196

Visual Communication 8(2)

Extract 4
Blair doesnt look terribly happy, and standing by him is what seems
to be a sort of butler figure and he is holding a tin of a [laughs] Nice
n neutral full gloss and then Id obviously start interpreting it. I
would presume that Blair is trying to whitewash himself, so that
perhaps what hes got running down him is actually whitewash and
not water. (A)

This passage illustrates how respondents gradually pieced together all the
verbal and visual evidence in order to create a coherent narrative. One of
the non-native English speakers, for instance, did not get the reference to
whitewashing, and instead came up with the association of the White
House. Although she was still able to come up with some meaning for
the cartoon, she was clearly aware of the fact that she was missing
something:
Extract 5
The White House! So its putting him [Blair] in the White House, or
painting him as if he was the White House, for the relationship . . . He
took us to the war for the false grounds, as it says here, just joining the
White House. Probably this one is completely wrong. (F)

The third and final function of verbal text in Figure 3 is to add further
humorous details. All the native English speakers agreed that the hint of
raspberry was an allusion to blowing a raspberry, thus implying that the
cover-up might not be as complete as intended. For D, this expression
simultaneously recalled the various shades of paint one might find in a DIY
shop, which to her conveyed the image of rather small-minded Englishness.
The description of the paint as Nice n Neutral was interpreted by B as
obviously satirical, implying that Lord Butler was anything but neutral.
These subtleties of linguistic and cultural meaning were apparently not
available to the non-native English speakers participating in the study.

(e) Reading metaphor

As pointed out earlier, the relationship between the two levels of meaning so
characteristic of the political cartoon is essentially metaphorical: people and
events are depicted as something that they are not in order to arrive at a new
definition of what they are (Edwards, 1997: 128). From a cognitivist
perspective, metaphors are sets of mappings between a more concrete or
physical source domain and a more abstract target domain (Kvecses, 2002:
67). Good, apt metaphors are thus able to do more than merely highlighting
pre-existing similarities between two different objects: they can encourage us
to see things in a completely new light and thus reconceptualize a whole area
of reality (Cacciari, 1998: 138).
El Refaie: Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons

197

Of the three examples used in this study, it was Figure 3 that

generated the most interesting metaphorical thought processes and set off a
chain of thought about the war in Iraq, the Butler Report, and the various
personalities involved in the decision to join the US-led invasion:
Extract 6
The notion is that the Butler report gave Blair a whitewash, but the
result is that Blair covered in whitewash is looking extremely
uncomfortable, whereas Butler walking away is looking rather pleased
with himself. It seems to me the interpretation is that Butler has
apparently whitewashed Blair, but in fact feels that hes left the Prime
Minister in what he seems to think is a very uncomfortable position.
Obviously theres also this thing on the tin, with a merest hint of
raspberry, which again implies: Yes Ive whitewashed you, but its not
as simple as that, theres a raspberry floating around in it as well. (C)

For another interviewee, the butler figure evoked the idea that Tony Blair
really rather likes to be thought of as a member of the elite and of having a
manservant who attends to him and looks after him (A). Respondent B used
the fact that the butler is dressed far too formally for an ordinary manservant
to conclude that the cartoonist was presenting Lord Butler as a toff, a
member of the establishment. Just pretending to be a butler.
The cartoon thus encouraged viewers to go beyond the simple
concept of whitewashing and to use visual details such as facial expression
and dress to generate a whole set of interesting questions: Who exactly was
responsible for the act of whitewashing? Was the whitewash really a
complete success? What are Tony Blair and Lord Butler like as human beings
and what is their relationship to one another?
Even if the cartoon was interpreted in a way that completely diverged
from the cartoonists intended meaning, it still generated intriguing
metaphorical entailments. Respondent H did not see the two figures as
specific personalities; instead he saw the figure in the bath and the butler as
representing, respectively, the government of an invading country and the
people of the invaded countries. For him, the white substance in the tin
represented the invasion of a foreign country, and the information on the
tin the unreliable information provided by the intelligence services. He
interpreted this as indicating the need to read the small print before
deciding on military intervention, in order to know whether there are any
damaging side-effects.
The responses to Figure 3 show that visual metaphors are often more
specific than words, capturing nuances of meaning that would be hard and
sometimes perhaps even litigious if conveyed through language.

198

Visual Communication 8(2)

CONCLUSION

The results of this small pilot study appear to challenge the widespread view
that cartoons are simple and easy to read. My findings suggest that even for
highly educated readers who are relatively well informed about political
events the reading of individual newspaper cartoons poses quite a challenge
and requires a whole range of literacies, including a broad knowledge of
current events, an excellent grasp of idioms and other linguistic phenomena,
a vast repertoire of cultural symbols, a familiarity with cartoon conventions,
and a capacity for lateral thinking. According to some educators, these
features make the political cartoon, used judiciously, a particularly good
vehicle through which to develop an ability to identify bias and formulate
opinions (Kleeman, 2006: 62) and an outstanding device for honing
analytical skills (Dougherty, 2002: 264).
Even the apparently simple process of identifying visual elements and
parsing them according to the ways they refer to the world (Elkins, 2003:
137) is far from straightforward. In this study, the respondents were all well
aware of the main issues surrounding the Butler report and most of the
divergent responses thus cannot be explained as the result of a simple
knowledge deficit. Instead, many of the distinctive interpretations were due
to respondents unique socio-cultural background, as the example of the war
graves in Figure 1, which evoked different responses from the British and
non-British participants, clearly demonstrates.
As Nicholas Garland pointed out, the language of cartooning is not
always self-evident and can be misunderstood by readers who are not used to
this genre. For instance, a familiarity with the convention of sequence and
motion lines was clearly decisive for the understanding of the falling cat in
Figure 2. Similarly, in order for viewers to understand that the caption to
Figure 1 represented the spoken words of the figure in the foreground, they
had to recognize that the quotation marks and open mouth indicated a direct
speech act. The identification of some of the visual elements, such as the Yfronts in Figure 3 or the particular way in which Tony Blair is caricatured by
Garland in Figure 2, were apparently dependent upon a familiarity with the
work of a particular artist. In this respect, an awareness of the visual practices
associated with the cartoon genre and with individual British artists may
allow viewers to move from tacit looking to a more skilled understanding
in Schirato and Webbs sense (2004: 2, 3).
In the cartoon genre, text and images are often so closely related as to
be virtually inseparable. Sometimes words simply anchor visual meaning,
but in many cases they add further information or create a sense of incongruity and irony that could not be conveyed through the image alone. As the
example of the inscription on the tin of paint in Figure 3 shows, many of
these additional meanings may not be available or at least not particularly
salient to non-native speakers.

El Refaie: Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons

199

Political cartoons are generally designed to be suggestive and to

require a critical transformation on the part of the reader. In the case of
cartoons which are based on graphic concretization of verbal idioms (Figures
2 and 3), for instance, readers must not only be aware of specific proverbs or
idiomatic expressions, they must also be able to make a mental leap from the
level of language to that of visual meaning. In fact, lateral thinking is
demanded in the case of any cartoon that is based on metaphor. As the
example of Figure 3 in particular shows, such cartoons can trigger critical
thought processes about the connections between seemingly unrelated areas
of reality, and they are thus often able to go well beyond what pure text
could achieve.
In view of the small number of participants, any conclusions that can
be drawn from this explorative pilot study will of necessity be quite tentative
and require further investigation. In particular, it would be important to
explore the interpretation process with respect to a larger number of
cartoons and in a wider population. It would also be necessary to consider
carefully the routine physical locations and circumstances of ordinary
reception (Moores, 1993: 3269). The degree to which a cartoon is processed
is likely to be influenced not just by background knowledge and cultural
literacies, but also by pragmatic factors such as available time, lack of
distraction and levels of motivation. The pilot study under discussion was
not based on a natural reading situation in the sense of an ethnographic
study. The interviews took place in an office, and participants were presented
with a newspaper page that was several weeks old and that was taken out of
its natural context. Respondents were encouraged to follow particular
predetermined steps in the interpretation process, and to spend more time
and energy on this than they probably would in normal circumstances.
Finally, any future studies of the way people read cartoons must
consider carefully the inherent difficulties of verbalizing visual meaning and
the extent to which verbal responses can be considered reliable data for
judging what people actually see in an image. As Cook (2001) rightly points
out, facial expression, for example, is a graded paralinguistic phenomenon,
which cannot be simply translated or paraphrased into words: Paralanguage
is literally beyond complete description in language, because it belongs to a
different kind of communication from language (p. 72). Perhaps future
researchers will be able to devise methods of exploring multimodal literacies
that are not so dependent on purely verbal data.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Nicholas Garland, Dave Brown and Steve MacMurty for
permitting the use of their cartoons in this article and for kindly agreeing to
be interviewed by telephone (June and July 2005).

200

Visual Communication 8(2)

NOTES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Both in the US (Edwards, 1997; Koetzle and Brunell, 1996;

Michelmore, 2000; Penner and Penner, 1994; Templin, 1999) and in
Europe (Martin, 1987; Morrison, 1992; Moyle, 2000), scholars have
explored cartoon representations of specific personalities, themes or
events. There are also several collections of cartoons that represent the
work of particular artists or periods in history (Lamb, 2004; Mumford,
2001; Newton, 1998; Walker, 1978). A small number of academic studies
address the language of political cartoons (Edwards, 1997; Harrison,
1981; Morris, 1993). Dines (1995: 249) is one of the few authors to call
for a more nuanced and sensitive analysis of cartoon audiences.
In media and cultural studies, there has also been a marked shift away
from theories of effects or influence to an interest in how audiences
create meanings (Moores, 1993).
Messaris view is apparently confirmed by the findings of cognitive
scientists, who have shown that our vision is always an act of
construction, regardless of whether we perceive an image or a real-life
object (Hoffman, 1998).
Gombrich (1977) argues that different visual cultures have different
standards as to what constitutes a realistic rendition of the world and
that there are therefore no necessary or sufficient rules of correspondence between pictures and their real-world referents.
There are of course many notable exceptions to this general rule,
including many of the underground comix of the late 1960s and early
1970 and more recently Art Spiegelmans accounts of his parents
experiences in the Holocaust, Maus and Maus II (Witek, 2004).
While it would be an oversimplification to suggest that cartoonists
always directly reflect the opinions of the editors for which they work,
they probably tend to migrate to papers with which they have a
reasonable degree of political sympathy (Mumford, 2001: xi). While
Nicholas Garland is given complete freedom in choosing what to
draw for The Daily Telegraph, Dave Brown usually produces a quick
rough and faxes it to the editorial board of The Independent for
approval. Only on the rare occasion has he encountered any
objections, which are generally to do with issues of taste and decency.
Cartoonist Steve MacMurty presents an average of five different ideas
to the editor of the Daily Mail, who then picks the one he likes best:
So I suppose that is a subtle form of censorship. In the interviews,
several of the respondents expressed surprise at the fact that Figure 1
was published in the Daily Mail, which was perceived to be very rightwing and generally supportive of military action.
In Drawing Tony, Steve Bell (2004) says that once he had discovered
the secret of his one mad (left) eye, furrowed brow and bland, twinkly
(right) eye, he was able to apply these features to any animal or

El Refaie: Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons

201

8.

9.

10.

object. Seymour-Ure (1998) describes cartoonist Rowsons Blair as

wearing a smile some way towards mania and built like a cascade of
piano keys (p. 3).
Garland explained that he had intended to depict a cat twisting and
turning in the air and that, given the opportunity, he would have
preferred to have done the cartoon not in a landscape format, but
rather as a long tall drawing.
In their study of gestures in Asterix comic books, Fein and Kasher
(1996) found that people have a firm comprehension of the gestures
in comics, which are generally understood to mean the same as
similar real-life gestures.
In fact, Brown had intended his cartoon to express the idea that the
report put a gloss on things. None of my eight respondents
mentioned this particular expression.

REFERENCES

Baldry, A. and Thibault, P.J. (2006) Multimodal Transcription and Text

Analysis: A Multimedia Toolkit and Coursebook. London: Equinox.
Barthes, R. (1977) The Rhetoric of the Image, in ImageMusicText, pp.
3251 (essays selected and translated from the French by Stephen
Heath). London: Fontana.
Bell, S. (2004) Drawing Tony, The Guardian, 17 July: 11.
Cacciari, C. (1998) Why Do We Speak Metaphorically? Reflections on the
Functions of Metaphor in Discourse and Reasoning, in A.N. Katz et
al. (eds) Figurative Language and Thought, pp. 11957. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Conners, J.L. (1998) Hussein as Enemy: The Persian Gulf War in Political
Cartoons, Press/Politics 3(3): 96114.
Cook, Guy (2001) The Discourse of Advertising, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
Diamond, M. (2002) No Laughing Matter: Post-September 11 Political
Cartoons in Arab/Muslim Newspapers, Political Communication
19(2): 25172.
Dines, G. (1995) Towards a Critical Sociological Analysis of Cartoons,
Humor 8(3): 23755.
Dittmer, J. (2005) Captain Americas Empire: Reflections on Identity,
Popular Culture, and Post-9/11 Geopolitics, Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 95(3): 62643.
Dougherty, B. (2002) Comic Relief: Using Political Cartoons in the
Classroom, International Studies Perspectives 3: 25870.
Edwards, J.L. (1997) Political Cartoons in the 1988 Presidential Campaign:
Image, Metaphor, and Narrative. New York: Garland.
Eisner, W. (1985) Comics and Sequential Art: Principles and Practice of the
Worlds Most Popular Art Form. Paramus, NJ: Poorhouse.
Ekman, P. (1999) Basic Emotions, in T. Dalgleish and M. Power (eds)
Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, pp. 4560. New York: Wiley.
202

Visual Communication 8(2)

El Refaie, E. (2003) Understanding Visual Metaphor: The Example of

Newspaper Cartoons, Visual Communication 2(1): 7596.
Elkins, J. (2003) Visual Studies: A Sceptical Introduction. London: Routledge.
Fein, O. and Kasher, A. (1996) How to Do Things With Words and Gestures
in Comics, Journal of Pragmatics 26: 793808.
Fischer, R.A. (1996) Them Damned Pictures: Explorations in American
Political Cartoon Art. North Haven, CT: Archon Books.
Frahm, O. (2003) Too Much Is Too Much: The Never Innocent Laughter of
the Comics, Image & Narrative 7.
Gee, J.P. (1996) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, 2nd
edn. London: Falmer Press.
Gombrich, E.H. (1977) Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial
Representation, 5th edn. London: Phaidon.
Harrison, R.P. (1981) The Cartoon: Communication to the Quick. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Hoffman, D. (1998) Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See. New
York: W.W. Norton.
Horn, R.E. (1998) Visual Language: Global Communication for the 21st
Century. Bainbridge Island, WA: MacroVU.
Huxford, J. (2001) Beyond the Referential: Uses of Visual Symbolism in the
Press, Journalism 2(1): 4571.
Jensen, J. (1997) The End of the Line? The Future of British Cartooning, in
A Sense of Permanence? Essays on the Art of the Cartoon, pp. 1122.
Canterbury: Centre for the Study of Cartoons and Caricature.
Jewitt, C. and Oyama, R. (2001) Visual Meaning: A Social Semiotic
Approach, in T. van Leeuwen and C. Jewitt (eds) Handbook of Visual
Analysis, pp. 13456. London: Sage.
Kenney, K. and Scott, L.M. (2003) A Review of the Visual Rhetoric
Literature, in L.M. Scott and R. Batra (eds) Persuasive Imagery: A
Consumer Response Perspective, pp. 1756. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kleeman, G. (2006) Not Just For Fun: Using Cartoons to Investigate
Geographical Issues, New Zealand Geographer 62: 14451.
Koetzle, W. and Brunell, T.L. (1996) Lip-Reading, Draft-Dodging, and Perotnoia: Presidential Campaigns in Editorial Cartoons, Press/Politics
1(4): 94115.
Kvecses, Z. (2002) Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (1996) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual
Design. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2001) Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and
Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
Lamb, C. (2004) Drawn to Extremes: The Use and Abuse of Editorial Cartoons.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2003) New Literacies: Changing Knowledge
and Classroom Learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.
El Refaie: Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons

203

LeRoy, C.M. (1970) Political Cartoons: Ink Blots of the Editorial Page,
Journal of Popular Culture 4(1): 3945.
Martin, W.R. (1987) Peridis and Political Cartoons in Post-Franco Spain,
Journal of Popular Culture 20(4): 15973.
Matsumoto, D. et al. (2003) Cultural Influences on the Expression and
Perception of Emotions, in W.B. Gudykunst (ed.) Cross-Cultural and
Intercultural Communication, pp. 91110. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCloud, S. (1993) Understanding Comics. New York: HarperPerennial.
McKenna, K.J. (2001) All the Views Fit to Print: Changing Images of the U.S. in
Pravda Political Cartoons, 19171991. New York: Peter Lang.
Messaris, P. (1994) Visual Literacy: Image, Mind, and Reality. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Messaris, P. (1997) Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Messaris, P. (1998) Visual Aspects of Media Literacy, Journal of
Communication 48(1): 7080.
Michelmore, C. (2000) Old Pictures in New Frames: Images of Islam and
Muslims in Post World War II, Journal of American Culture 23(4): 3750.
Moores, S. (1993) Interpreting Audiences: The Ethnography of Media
Consumption. London: Sage.
Morris, R. (1993) Visual Rhetoric in Political Cartoons: A Structuralist
Approach, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 8(3): 195210.
Morrison, S.S. (1992) The Feminization of the German Democratic
Republic in Political Cartoons 198990, Journal of Popular Culture
25(4): 3552.
Moyle, L.R. (2000) Den Krieg gewonnen aber den Frieden verloren? Das
Deutschlandbild in der britischen Karikatur seit 1945 (We Won the
War but Lost the Peace? The Image of Germany in British
Caricatures since 1945), in L.R. Moyle et al. (eds) Deutschland und
seine Nachbarn: Briten, Franzosen, Niederlnder und Polen blicken auf
Deutschland (Germany and Her Neighbours: A View of Germany
from Britain, the Netherlands and Poland), pp.733. Hanover: Dobler.
Mumford, A. (2001) Stabbed in the Front: Post-War General Elections through
Political Cartoons. Canterbury: Centre for the Study of Cartoons and
Caricature.
Newton, J. (1998) Political Cartoons of 1998. Canterbury: Centre for the
Study of Cartoons and Caricature.
Nikolajeva, M. and Scott, C. (2001) How Picturebooks Work. New York: Garland.
Nodelman, P. (1988) Words about Pictures: The Narrative Art of Childrens
Picture Books. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Pahl, K. and Rowsell, J. (2006) Introduction, in K. Pahl and J. Rowsell (eds)
Travel Notes from the New Literacy Studies: Instances of Practice, pp.
115. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Penner, M. and Penner, S. (1994) Publicizing, Politicizing, and Neutralizing
Homelessness: Comic Strips, Communication Research 21(6): 76681.
204

Visual Communication 8(2)

Rowson, M. (nd) We, The Cartoonists, Are the True Outsiders of

Journalism. URL (consulted 16 March 2007): http://www.political
cartoon.co.uk/html/history/we-the-cartoonists.html
Sabin, R. (1996) Comics, Comix and Graphic Novels: A History of Comic Art.
London: Phaidon Press.
Schirato, T. and Webb, J. (2004) Understanding the Visual. London: Sage.
Seymour-Ure, C. (1998) Preface, in J. Newton (ed.) Political Cartoons of
1998, p. 3. Canterbury: Centre for the Study of Cartoons and
Caricature.
Smith, K. (1996) Laughing at the Way We See: The Role of Visual Organizing
Principles in Cartoon Humor, Humor 9(1): 1938.
Steadman, R. (1997) Its No Laughing Matter to Some, in A Sense of
Permanence? Essays on the Art of the Cartoon, pp. 2330. Canterbury:
Centre for the Study of Cartoons and Caricature.
Sturken, M. and Cartwright, L. (2001) Practices of Looking: An Introduction to
Visual Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Templin, C. (1999) Hillary Clinton as Threat to Gender Norms: Cartoon
Images of the First Lady, Journal of Communication Inquiry 23(1):
2036.
Tyner, K. (1998) Literacy in a Digital Age: Teaching and Learning in the Age of
Information. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2001) Semiotics and Iconography, in T. van Leeuwen and
C. Jewitt (eds) Handbook of Visual Analysis, pp. 92118. London: Sage.
Walker, M. (1978) Daily Sketches: A Cartoon History of Twentieth Century
Britain. London: Frederick Muller.
Witek, J. (2004) Imagetext, or, Why Art Spiegelman Doesnt Draw Comics,
ImageTexT: Interdisciplinary Comics Studies 1(1).
Zakia, R.D. (2002) Perception and Imaging. Boston, MA: Focal Press.
Zimmer, A. and Zimmer, F. (1978) Visual Literacy in Communication:
Designing for Development. Amersham, Bucks: Hulton Educational
Publications.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

ELISABETH EL REFAIE is Lecturer at the Centre for Language and

Communication Research, Cardiff University. The focus of her research is on
visual and multimodal forms of narrative, rhetoric and humour, and she is
currently working on a project which uses the graphic novel to explore
multimodal semiotics. Her work has appeared in scholarly journals such as
the Journal of Pragmatics, Journal of Sociolinguistics, and Journal of
Contemporary European Studies.
Address: Centre for Language and Communication Research, Cardiff
University, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EU, UK. [email: refaieee@cardiff.ac.uk]

El Refaie: Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons

205