533865

research-article2014
REL0010.1177/0033688214533865RELC JournalLiu and Qu

Article

RELC Journal

Exploring the Multimodality

2014, Vol. 45(2) 135150
The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
of EFL Textbooks for Chinese sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0033688214533865
College Students: rel.sagepub.com

A Comparative Study

Xiqin Liu
South China University of Technology, China; Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China

Dianning Qu
Central South University, China

Abstract
To explore the multimodality of two representative EFL textbook series for Chinese college
students, their visual and verbal semiotic modes were compared. The target textbooks are
Experiencing English and New Century College English. Through multimodal discourse analysis, the
study aims to shed some light on how to develop high-quality multimodal EFL textbooks. The main
findings are: (1) EE and NCCE are similar in the fact that their representative multimodal texts are
visually-verbally coherent and both demonstrate prominent features for intersemiotic semantic
relations; (2) their differences are EE displays a higher degree of interpersonal intersemiotic
complementarity and multimodality facilitates the realization of different modern educational
concepts constructivism in EE and humanism in NCCE; and (3) such differences are related
to or may partially result from the differences in the language difficulty of textbooks and English
proficiency of target learners. As a pioneering attempt to probe into the possible relationship
between multimodality and modern educational concepts in EFL textbooks, the study shows the
importance of properly arranging the different modes in a double-page spread. It also suggests that
EFL textbook compilers consider the learners English proficiency and appropriately employ the
variety and number of multimodal resources to achieve optimal intersemiotic complementarity.

Keywords
Multimodality, multimodal discourse analysis, intersemiotic complementarity, EFL textbook

Corresponding author:
Xiqin Liu, School of Foreign Languages, South China University of Technology, 381 Wushan Road,
Guangzhou, 510641, China.
Email: flxqliu@scut.edu.cn
136 RELC Journal 45(2)

Introduction
The idea of multimodality has been studied since the 4th century BC, when classical
rhetoricians alluded to it with their emphasis on voice, gesture, and expressions in public
speaking (Wysocki, 2002). But the term did not gain much attention until the 20th cen-
tury. As the normal state of human communication (Kress, 2010), multimodality is
defined as the diverse ways in which multiple semiotic resources (1anguage, visual
images or sound, etc) are both co-deployed and co-contextualized in the making of a
text-specific meaning (Thibault, 2001). In its most basic sense, multimodality is the mix-
ture of textual, audio, and visual modes in combination with mediums and materiality to
create meaning (Murray, 2013).
The collection of different (semiotic) modes can change the way an audience per-
ceives information. Cognitive studies have shown relationship between multimodality
and learning since the 1970s. In the educational arena, the multimodality of textbooks,
especially that of language textbooks, is regarded as having close relationship with the
effectiveness and efficiency of teaching and learning. So relevant research is crucial to
textbook development.
With the increasing use of multimedia technology in education and the growing
importance of multimodal EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teaching and learning,
it becomes necessary to explore the multimodality of the present EFL textbooks as a way
to help design high-quality multimodal textbooks. The present study investigates the
students book for the Integrated Course of two representative textbook series of college
English in China. One is Experiencing English (hereafter EE) published by Higher
Education Press in 2007 (2nd Edition). The other is New Century College English (here-
after NCCE) published by Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press in 2007, and its
Integrated Book is entitled Zooming In: An Integrated English Course. As Nationally
Planned Key Textbook Series in the 11th Five-year Period in China, they are widely used
by first-year and second-year college students, each in over 100 universities in China. In
universities where both textbook series are used, students of greater English proficiency
are selected to learn NCCE and the others learn EE for the former is more difficult than
the latter as a whole. Each textbook series consists of 4 books with 64 texts altogether,
namely Book 1 to Book 4. The overall level of the vocabulary difficulty of all the texts
in the target textbooks has been measured by the software Range 32 (Nation, 2005), and
the results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that the overall length of the texts in NCCE is greater than that of the
texts in EE, the numbers of overall types and families of NCCE are larger than those of
EE, and in each word list NCCE has more types than EE does. The above data support
the hypothesis that NCCE is more difficult than EE.
The study aims to examine the multimodality of the paper textbooks of EE and NCCE
by comparing their visual and verbal resources. The studys theoretical foundation is
mainly derived from the Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) view of language as
social semiotic (Halliday, 1978). The study employs an SFL approach to multimodal
discourse analysis (MDA) which focuses on how meaning is made through the use of
multiple modes of communication as opposed to just language (Jones, 2012). It involves
3 major steps: first, as a basis of MDA, sample visual propositions are compared with
Liu and Qu 137

Table 1. The Vocabulary Reports of EE and NCCE by Range 32.

WORD LIST TOKENS/% TYPES/% FAMILIES

EE NCCE EE NCCE EE NCCE

one 35793/81.49 47001/83.57 2395/36.81 2452/35.65 945 945
two 3237/7.37 4203/ 7.47 1350/20.75 1467/21.33 738 777
three 1188/2.70 1348/ 2.40 633/9.73 717/10.42 455 471
not in the lists 3704/8.43 3692/ 6.56 2128/32.71 2242/32.60 ????? ?????
Total 43922 56244 6506 6878 2138 2193

cognitive analysis; second, the three metafunctions of sample double-page spreads are
examined in the framework of Visual Grammar (Kress and Van Leeuwen, 1996) to find
the similarities and differences between EE and NCCE; last, the semantic relationships
between the visual and verbal modes are compared in terms of intersemiotic complemen-
tarity (Royce, 1998, 2000, 2007).
The study is guided by the following research questions:
What similarities or differences can be found between EE and NCCE in terms of mul-
timodality by investigating their visual and verbal modes? What are the implications for
textbook development?

Literature Review
Research on Textbook Multimodality
MDA is concerned with textbook discourse covering different disciplines. OHallaron
(1999a, 1999b, 2005), Lemke (1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2002b), Thilbault (2001) and Guo
(2004) examined the synergy of verbal and visual resources in science textbooks rich in
images and graphs, and they agreed on the advantages of images and graphs over lan-
guage as a semiotic resource in scientific texts. Jones (2006) explored the differences in
intersemiosis of three metafunctions in university teaching materials of physics and biol-
ogy. Li (2009) compared 8 paper textbooks of different disciplines at junior middle
school and university levels in China, and found that among them great distinctions
existed in multimodality.
According to Ajayi (2012), English language textbook producers integrate language
and multimodal resources (e.g. image, color, layout, typography and font) to communi-
cate messages, but Bezemer and Kress (2010), Giaschi (2000) and Petrie (2003) pointed
out that sometimes textbook producers relayed messages through the image across text-
books and such ideas might not be carried by the linguistic text. There are three major
studies on EFL textbooks in China. Chen and Qin (2007) investigated the multimodal
resources of engagement and the interaction between multiple voices in PEP Primary
English for Chinese pupils. Tan (2012), after examining Advance with English for senior
high school students, claimed that the lively layout and image facilitated literacy learning
and stimulated students interest in participation in learning practice, and the text and
image coexisted to make meaning, while the image repeated the text content more
138 RELC Journal 45(2)

intuitively. Li (2011) compared the listening and speaking coursebook and the reading
and writing coursebook of New Horizon College English and argued that the different
tasks and cognitive characteristics of different classes determined mode selection.
To sum up, these previous studies are insightful, but there is no comparative research
on the multimodality of parallel EFL textbooks for Chinese college students. Since
2000, four EFL textbook series for college students are now developed as Nationally
Planned Key ones in every five-year period in China. So a comparative study on them
is necessary. The present study aims to fill this gap by comparing two important text-
book series.

Research on NCCE and EE

Due to the widespread use of the two textbook series, many scholars (e.g. Qin, 2008a,
2008b; Chen and Gao, 2009; He and Zhou, 2010; Chen, 2005; Bian, 2006, and Che,
2009) have evaluated them from various aspects. The most important studies are as
follows.
Qin (2008a, 2008b) analyzed how the humanistic concept of teaching and learning was
embodied in NCCE, the purpose of which is to help the learner to be a self-actualizer. He
argued the humanistic concept of teaching and learning originated from humanistic psy-
chology emphasizing an individuals inherent drive towards self-actualization and crea-
tivity. Textbooks guided by such a concept aim to assist learners in tapping their potentials
of autonomous learning and creativity by arousing their interest in learning.
Bian (2006), Chen (2005) and others found that the language pictures and other ele-
ments in EE worked together to make meaning and claimed that the ideology of con-
structivism was reflected in EE. As an educational perspective, constructivism explains
how knowledge is constructed in the human being when information comes into contact
with existing knowledge from experiences. Textbooks guided by constructivism should
provide as many resources and channels as possible to help learners perceive information
and construct knowledge.
However, no comparative study on EE and NCCE has been found which compares the
multimodality of the two parallel textbook series and probe the possible relationship
between multimodality and modern educational concepts. For the reasons outlined here,
the current study aims to address this gap in the literature.

A Comparative Description of Sample Visual Propositions

A sample visual proposition is defined here as a typical construction of visual elements
which interplay and combine to make meanings. For practicality, a typical double-page
spread is chosen to stand for it in this research as the characteristics of a spread are
closely related to multimodality and ways of perceiving information. After careful inves-
tigation, the spread of pages 96-97 in EE (Unit 5, Book 2) and that of pages 66-67 in
NCCE (Unit 3, Book 2) are selected mainly because the two units involve the same
topicthe ways of (road to) success.
The spread of EE covers the text My Advice to Students: Education Counts (an
inspiring speech by Bill Gates) while that of NCCE covers the first two pages of the text
Liu and Qu 139

Figure 1. The Picture Style of EE.

The Shadowland of Dreams (an autobiographical story of success by Alex Haley).

Figure 1 and Figure 2 are based on the two spreads but not restricted to them. Actually
they are intended to generalize the two different patterns which are dominant and rep-
resentative in the two textbook series. The spread illustrated by Figure 1 is called the
Picture Style and that by Figure 2 is called the Margin Style. The photos of the actual
spreads are in the Appendix (see Figure 3 and Figure 4).
In EE, the upper half of the first page is sparsely placed with visual blocks. The lower
half is further divided into halves: one picture on the left (usually a photo of the author
or narrator) and the beginning of the text on the right. There is sharp contrast in color and
much difference in visual density across different parts of the spread.
The Picture Style is universal in all the units of EE. There is no difference in style
between the two texts in each unit. The page numbers of more examples in Book 2 are
12-13, 19-20, 34-35, 40-41, 56-57, 62-63, 76-77, 82-83, 102-103, 116-17, 122-23, 136-
37, 142-43, 156-57 and 163-64.
In every unit of NCCE, there are two texts: Text A and Text B. Text A, as the main
text, is usually more difficult and intended for classroom learning. It is put in the middle,
surrounded by accompanying notes to the text in the side margins and the glossary in the
bottom margin with a blue background which looks like a wavy ocean. Text B (see
Figure 5), without glossary in the bottom margin, is usually easier and intended for after-
class learning to foster learner autonomy. The key new words in Text B have been put in
a table before the text and learners are asked to consult a dictionary for the meaning. As
for the other new words (less commonly used ones), the Chinese translation is given in
brackets immediately following each of them.
140 RELC Journal 45(2)

Figure 2. The Margin Style of NCCE.

In contrast to the brief notes in EE, those in NCCE are detailed. The printing of NCCE
is only black and blue. The two varieties of the style can be found in every unit of NCCE,
and the page numbers of more examples of Text A in Book 2 are: 3-8, 31-36, 65-72,
99-105, 148-55, 181-88, 213-18 and 243-48, those of Text B are 11-14, 40-46, 77-82,
108-12, 158-62, 191-95, 221-25 and 253-57.
The Picture Style of EE is characterized by colorful pictures and the color back-
ground, and the Margin Style of NCCE is prominent for notes and glossary (or word
table and translation) accompanying the text. Images represent the world in an iconic
way for it simulates the actual world directly. But language is symbolic and linear, and it
requires the conceptualizer to form linear symbols into phrases and phrases into sen-
tences. Since images demand gestalt-perception based on the whole, they tend to make
meaning more quickly. Psychological experiments have proved images can attract read-
ers attention and be remembered more easily. This explains an obvious advantage of the
pictures and color background in EE: facilitating the construction of links between new
knowledge and past experiences. The Picture Style especially benefits the learners at
relatively low levels of English Proficiency because it can relieve their cognitive burden.
So the hypothesis that multimodality facilitates the realization of constructivism in EE is
supported.
As for NCCE, notes and glossary (or word table and translation) appear much more
salient and take up much more space than those in EE. Each of them is directly targeted
at the corresponding word, line or paragraph. The invisible but direct pointing from notes
or word table to the text lines requires the readers to pay focal attention to the language
details. So the Margin Style is more suitable for learners with greater English Proficiency.
The difference between Text A and Text B, and that between key new words and the
Liu and Qu 141

others in Text B are evidence for the fact that efforts have been made to help learners
form a good habit of thinking and finding answers independently, fostering the autono-
mous learning of individual learners as self-actualizers. By facilitating the simultaneous
processes of zooming in on the text and zooming in on the learner (Qin, 2008), mul-
timodality of NCCE helps to realize humanism.
These findings support the research of Qin (2008a, 2008b), Bian (2006) and Chen
(2005) and serve as evidence for the hypothesis that multimodality facilitates the realiza-
tion of different modern educational concepts embodied in EE and NCCE. One implica-
tion is that, to achieve corresponding educational aims, textbook compilers should pay
special attention to the arrangement of page-based visual and verbal modes.

A Comparison of Metafunctional Meanings in the

Framework of Visual Grammar
According to Halliday (1985), language has three metafunctions: ideational, interper-
sonal and textual. They are respectively labeled as representational, interactive and com-
positional in the Visual Grammar of Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996), a syntax of visual
images. Representational structures verbally and visually construct the nature of events,
the objects and participants, and the circumstances; interactive verbal and visual
resources construct the nature of relationships among addressers and addressees, and
viewers and the viewed; compositional meanings concern the distribution of the infor-
mation value or relative emphasis among elements of the text and image.
Representational metafunction includes two main types: narrative and conceptual.
Narrative processes can be subdivided into Action process, Reactional process and
Projective process on the basis of the kinds of vector and the number and kind of partici-
pants involved. Conceptual processes can be classificational or analytical. Interactionally,
the first analytical dimension is whether or not represented participants look directly at
the viewers eyes to form a vector. The existence or lack of a vector decides whether the
visual is a demand or offer. In the compositional metafunction, the composition of the
whole text is about the way in which all the elements are integrated into a meaningful
whole. Information value, salience and framing are three interrelated systems in explor-
ing this compositional meaning.

Representational Meaning
In terms of representational meaning, the difference between EE and NCCE is the double-
page spread of the Picture Style of EE which is a narrative visual proposition but the
Margin Style of NCCE is conceptual.
In EE, the photo of Bill Gates represents an Action process. Contrasted with the dark
background, his face is salient. The speaker is the Actor and the Goal is the microphones
which represent the expected audience (students). The picture is personal and dynamic.
Additionally, the photo and the text together represent a speech process, similar to a
dialogue balloon of such structures which are called Projective by Halliday (1985).
Contrarily, the Margin Style of NCCE is not narrative but conceptual which indicates
analytical processes relating participants in terms of a part-whole structure. The text in
142 RELC Journal 45(2)

the middle of the double-page spread is the Carrier (the whole) while the notes and glos-
sary are Attributes (the parts).
Many analytical visuals have low modality, from the naturalistic viewpoint. Too much
lifelikeness and detail would distract from their analytical purpose. Only the essential
features of the Possessive Attributes are shown, and for this reason photographs or highly
detailed artwork are not preferred. The representation of depth is reduced or absent, as is
the detailed representation of light and shadow. Color, if it is used at all, is restricted to a
reduced palette, or used conventionally for instance, to distinguish participants.
Background is left out, or only sketched in lightly. The Possessive Attributes are labeled.
Elements like subscripts and italic in the text of NCCE serve to identify a Carrier and to
allow viewers to scrutinize this Carriers Possessive Attributes. Advanced textbooks
described their readers as no longer needing pictures, as having been weaned off eve-
ryday naturalism, and as having acquired the abstract and impersonal attitude that char-
acterized higher learning (Kress and Van Leeuwen, 1996).
To sum up, the conceptual NCCE, designed for learners of greater proficiency in
English, looks more abstract than the narrative EE. This shows textbook multimodality
helps realize different types of representational meanings.

Interactive Meaning
As for interactive meaning, the Picture Style of EE is found to be an offer image embed-
ded with a salient demand, but the Margin Style of NCCE is a pure offer image.
The picture in the sample proposition of EE, the photo of the speaker Bill Gates, has
two related functions. First, it creates a visual form of direct address and acknowledges
the viewers explicitly, addressing them with a visual you. Second, it constitutes an
image act. The producer uses the image to do something to the viewer. It is called a
demand image: the participants gaze and the gesture of his right hand demand some-
thing from the viewer, demanding that the viewer enter into some kind of imaginary
relation of social afnity with him.
However, the overall construction of the double-page spread is an offer image. Here
the viewer is not object, but subject of the look, and the represented participant is the
object of the viewers dispassionate scrutiny. No contact is made. The viewers role is that
of an invisible onlooker. It offers the represented participants to the viewer as items of
information, objects of contemplation, impersonally. Here the text, the notes and the web-
site links and other elements all offer some information to the viewer. Since the demand
image is a prominent component of the Picture Style, it is called an impure offer here.
Contrarily, the Margin Style of NCCE is a pure offer construction which is abstract
and highly valued. Here a real or imaginary barrier is erected between the represented
participants and the viewers, a sense of disengagement, in which the viewer must have
the illusion that the represented participants do not know they are being looked at.
According to Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996), school textbooks seem to construct a
progression from demand to offer pictures not only in the course of a chapter, but also
in the course of a whole book or series of books and, indeed, in the course of education
as a whole illustrations that served to involve students emotively in the subject matter
then gradually dropped out as higher levels of education were reached. In the context of
Liu and Qu 143

(higher) education, the demand picture was not a highly valued form, but a form
deemed suitable only for beginners, a form one grew out of as one climbed the educa-
tional ladder.
Since EE is designed for EFL learners at lower levels of English proficiency than
NCCE, it is regarded as necessary to include a demand picture in an offer image. Such a
textbook may serve as a transition from demand to offer. However, the textbooks
examined by Chen and Qin (2007) and Tan (2012) which are designed for pupils or high
school students, are all pure demand constructions. In terms of interactive meaning, the
textbooks from PEP Primary English, Advance with English, EE and NCCE seem to
form a progression. So textbook multimodality is related to how high the target learners
are in the educational ladder.

Compositional Meaning
In terms of compositional meaning, the biggest difference between EE and NCCE is that
the Picture Style of EE is a left-and-right composition, but the Margin Style of NCCE is
a centered one. Differences (and similarities) are also found in framing.
In EE, the left page is dominated by a salient picture and striking column headings. The
right page contains mostly verbal text. On such pages there often is a sense of complemen-
tarity or continuous movement from left to right. The reader of the passage is invited to
form a positive attitude to education. On such pages the right seems to be the side of the
key information, of what the reader must pay particular attention to, of the message
what is to be learned in the textbook. It follows that the left is the side of the already
given, something the reader is assumed to know already, as part of the culture. Bill Gates
is supposed to be widely known by the college students. The new information to which
the viewer must pay special attention is why education counts and how to learn.
In NCCE, the centered composition makes significant use of the Center, placing the
text in the middle and the other elements (called Margins) around it. What is presented
as Center is the nucleus of the information to which all the other elements are in some
sense subservient, ancillary and dependent. The Margins (notes and glossary) are identi-
cal or at least very similar to each other, so that there is no sense of a division between
Given and New and/or Ideal and Real elements among them.
As for framing, in both EE and NCCE, the largest size of the passage blocks shows its
superiority over the other elements. In addition, in EE, lines, the edges of the picture and the
color differences in the words and background are all used as framing devices to divide the text
from the other elements. In NCCE, vertical bars with line numbers, curve, italic and the blue
color of the background for the new words are used as disconnecting devices. In both EE and
NCCE, devices like superscripts are used to connect the text and other elements.
In summary, the above metafunction analysis of EE and NCCE shows how different
modes work together to facilitate learning in different ways. Both EE and NCCE
address the needs of learners and they are learner-centered. EE endeavors to build a
helpful environment for learning by using colorful pictures, indicating the website of
the online learning system and other tools. The emphasis on experiencing is in line
with constructivism. NCCE enables learners to look up new words easily, provide
notes in the immediate vicinity and leave larger row spacing for note-taking. All these
144 RELC Journal 45(2)

show that humanism is embodied. These findings further support the research of Qin
(2008a, 2008b), Bian (2006) and Chen (2005).

A Comparison of the Intersemiotic Complementarity

Royce TD (1998, 2000, 2007) advances a detailed framework for intersemiotic comple-
mentarity which refers to the interaction and intersemiosis that take place between verbal
and visual modes, producing a unified coherent message (Royce, 1998: 26) to viewers
(or readers). Aiming at the nature of the intersemiotic semantic relationships between the
two modes, this framework includes three categories of intersemiotic complementarity:
ideational, interpersonal and compositional. Royces (1998, 2000, 2007) ideational inter-
semiotic relations are an adaptation of Halliday and Hasans (2001) lexicalcohesive
relations, renamed as sense relations. The interpersonal relations that relate images and
text have to do with the reinforcement of their function of addressing the reader/viewer
and with the congruence or dissonance of their attitudinal meanings. Componential rela-
tions are a variant of sense relations and layout.
The following analysis is made with adaptations of Royces theoretical framework
and based on the sample propositions and/or the sample units.

Ideational Intersemiotic Complementarity

Royce TD (2007) proposes 6 semantic relations which interconnect verbal and visual
aspects within a single text. They are repetition, synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, mero-
nymy and collocation. Variations occur according to the coding orientation: identifica-
tion, activity, circumstances and attributes. EE and NCCE both strongly demonstrate
synonymy.
In the sample unit of EE, 21 photos, 5 icons and one drawing have been found to have
the semantic relationship of synonymy with the text. Most of them involve identifica-
tions and the others activity or circumstances. In the sample unit of NCCE, synonymy is
found between 13 icons and the text, 3 of which involve identification and the others
activity.
In the sample visual proposition of EE (narrative), the photo of Bill Gates helps the
viewer to identify the narrator I in the passage. In that of NCCE (conceptual), the sub-
scripts and highlighted parts correspond with the notes, which also indicates synonymy.

Interpersonal Intersemiotic Complementarity

In the examination of the interpersonal intersemiotic features of a multimodal text, 4
primary speech functions of offer, command, statement and question and the MOOD
structure of the Subject and the Finite should be analyzed. As for MOOD in the visual
component, however, visuals utilize different methods which dont easily fit with the
verbal categories. The visuals often need verbal support to make the nature of the 4
speech functions clear. Generally speaking, this kind of support refers to various rela-
tions: reinforcement, congruence and dissonance.
Liu and Qu 145

EE and NCCE are found to be different in interpersonal intersemiotic complementa-

rity, but both clearly demonstrate reinforcement. According to the previous analysis of
the research, the Margin Style of NCCE is an offer. Linguistically, the offer of informa-
tion is realized by the indicative mood, in which the Finite element follows the Subject,
as in these sentences from the passage:

This is the Shadowland of hope, and anyone with a dream (Subject) must (Finite) learn to live
there.
Its a lesson anyone with a dream (Subject) should (Finite) learn.

The Picture Style of EE is an impure offer embedded with a demand/command. In the

text, the imperative mood has been used to indicate a demand. The following sentences
taken from the passage provide some evidence, which have no Subject and, when it is
positive, no Finite either:

Get the best education you can. (no Subject or Finite)

Learn how to learn. (no Subject or Finite)

There is also evidence for indicative mood:

Nobody (Subject) should (Finite) drop out of college unless

The above examples show evidence for mode reinforcement in both EE and NCCE.
As far as the whole sample units are concerned, since EE is abundant in photographs
to represent interactive/interpersonal meanings, more evidence has been found for inter-
personal intersemiotic complementarity than in NCCE. This is in line with the findings
discussed in the section A Comparative Description of Sample Visual Propositions ear-
lier in this paper.

Compositional Intersemiotic Complementarity

EE and NCCE both show strong compositional intersemiotic complementarity, but in
different ways. There are a number of important visualverbal compositional aspects in
the two sample visual propositions that show both modes work together to produce the
coherent and unified visualverbal message to the readers.
The first page of the sample spread in EE is a vertical (top-bottom) placement, the
photograph is placed in the lower status half of the page, but this loss of vertical promi-
nence is compensated by its placement in a primary position in relation to the edge, and
the fact of its visual salience in terms of size and color saturation. Positioned next to the
photograph is the thesis of the passage. So there is a reinforcement relationship between
the photograph and the text regarding the information salience. Furthermore, on the
spread, the salience of the typewritten text is shown by the size of the text blocks and a
background with a color shading from white to orange.
The sample double-page spread of NCCE is a central placement, with two vertical bars
and a horizontal curve to divide the center from the surrounding elements. The central
146 RELC Journal 45(2)

placement acts as a stabiliser of weight, where visual elements are located in the central
area or on a centrally located axis gained in power and help the objects outside the center
zone to be united and stabilised when they are grouped around the balancing centre
(Arnheim, 1988: 133). Thus the sense of compositional unity and intermodal coherence is
maintained. Furthermore, the glossary block at the bottom of the spread competes in size
with the passage block, but its font size and row spacing are smaller than those of the pas-
sage block.
The overall effect for the readers of both EE and NCCE is the two modes in a sense
melt or blend with each other. In this way, there is an intersemiotic compositional coop-
eration which conveys to the reader a sense of visual unity, and lends compositional
support to the intersemiotic semantic relations in the text.

Discussion and Summary

To the best of our knowledge, this is a pioneering attempt to probe into the possible rela-
tionship between multimodality (especially that of the double-page spread) and modern
educational concepts in EFL textbooks. In this sense, the study supports the results of
previous research, especially those of Qin (2008a, 2008b), Bian (2006) and Chen (2005).
If linked with the findings of Chen and Qin (2007) and Tan (2012), it also offers evidence
for the claim of Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996) school textbooks seem to construct a
progression from demand to offer pictures. Furthermore, for the striking differences
found between the two parallel EFL textbooks, the study may serve as a complement to
the research of Jones (2006), Li (2009) and Li (2011).
The images and graphs in EE and NCCE are found to be complementary to the lan-
guage, different from those examined by Bezemer and Kress (2010), Giaschi (2000) and
Petrie (2003). The function of images found from the Picture Style is basically in line
with the findings of OHallaron (1999a, 1999b, 2005), Lemke (1998, 2000a, 2000b,
2002), Thilbault (2001), Guo (2004) and Jones (2006), but the obvious difference is
images in EFL textbooks tend to make less abstract meanings than those in science
textbooks.
To answer the research questions, the major findings of the study are summarized as
follows:
First, the similarity between EE and NCCE is that both strongly demonstrate interse-
miotic semantic relations. The sample multimodal texts taken from the two are visually-
verbally coherent. Ideationally, synonymy is found to be the most prominent semantic
relationship between the visual and verbal modes. Compositionally there are relation-
ships of reinforcement and congruence.
Second, one difference found between EE and NCCE is the former is abundant in pho-
tographs for interactive/interpersonal meanings, displaying stronger interpersonal interse-
miotic complementarity. The other difference is multimodality facilitates the realization
of different modern educational concepts: constructivism in EE and humanism in NCCE.
In EE, the Picture Style helps learners construct knowledge with past experiences, while
in NCCE where the learning materials are more difficult and abstract, the two varieties
of the Margin Style are used to help learners foster autonomous learning and
self-actualization.
Liu and Qu 147

Third, the characteristics of the Picture Style and the Margin Style constitute evidence
for the hypothesis that the differences in multimodality among EFL textbooks are related
to or may partially result from the differences in language difficulty of textbooks and
learners English proficiency.
There are three implications. One is visual and verbal modes in a double-page spread
should be arranged reasonably and properly to help realize corresponding educational
concepts. Second is that considerable differences in multimodality exist not only among
textbooks of different disciplines (Li, 2009; Jones, 2006), but also between parallel EFL
textbooks. Third, learners English proficiency levels should be considered and the rea-
sonable variety and number of multimodal resources employed to achieve optimal inter-
semiotic complementarity.
One obvious weakness of the present study is the limited scope of the research. It is
necessary to complete more research into the nature of the interactions between the ver-
bal and the visual in various EFL textbooks for different kinds of learners rather than
assuming a universal model. Further research can be done by building a multimodal
textbook corpus, making a quantitative content analysis and conducting an investigation
among the users.

Acknowledgements
We owe thanks to Prof. Yihua Zhang, Dr. Liang Li, Dr. Renhua Deng and Prof. Theo Van Leeuwen
for their helpful advice. We record our appreciation to Marie Yeo and Sathya Siva-Retnam of
SEAMEO RELC for their professionalism. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers
for their valuable comments.

Funding
This work was supported by the Central-university Basic Scientific Research Fund of South China
University of Technology [No. 2011SM009], the Teaching Reform Research Project of the
Education Department of Hunan Province, China [No. 223, 2013], and the 531 Personnel Project
of Central South University [No.1, 2014].

References
Ajayi L (2012) How teachers deploy multimodal textbooks to enhance English language learning.
TESOL Journal 6: 1635.
Arnheim R (1988) The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts. Berkeley
and LA: University of California Press.
Bezemer J, Kress G (2010) Changing text: a social semiotic analysis of textbooks. Design for
Learning 3: 1029.
Bian S (2006) New teaching notion of Experiencing English and its guiding function in college
English reform. Journal of Chengdu College of Education 12: 5961.
Che N (2009) Tentative analyses of the compiling mode of English teaching materials for college
educationon the compiling mode of Experiencing English. Journal of Beijing International
Studies University 2: 4952.
Chen B (2005) The mode of teaching courses under the guidance of constructivist theory. Journal
of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies 4: 9093.
Chen L, Gao S (2009) On the embodiment of humanistic educational thoughts in the Integrated
English Course Book. Journal of Naval University of Engineering 4: 7881.
148 RELC Journal 45(2)

Chen Y, Qin X (2007) Heteroglossic harmony: engagement resources in multimodal EFL textbook
discourse. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 12: 1518.
Experiencing English Project Group (2007) The Integrated Books of Experiencing English 14.
Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Giaschi P (2000) Gender positioning in education: a critical image analysis of ESL texts. TESL
Canada Journal 18(1): 3246.
Guo L (2004) Multimodality in a biology textbook. In: OHalloran KL (ed.) Multimodal Discourse
Analysis: Systemic Functional Perspectives. London: Continuum.
Halliday MAK (1978) Language and Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and
Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday MAK (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday MAK (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward
Arnold.
Halliday MAK, Hasan R (2001) Cohesion in English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press.
He Y, Zhou Y (2010) The application of exploration-oriented approach in college English teach-
ing. Modern Educational Technology 10: 9699.
Jones J (2006) Multiliteracies for academic purposes: a metafunctional exploration of inter-
semiosis and multimodality of university textbook and computer-based references learning
resources in science. PhD Thesis, The University of Sydney, Australia.
Jones RH (2012) Multimodal discourse analysis. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing. DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.
Kress G (2010) Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication.
New York: Routledge.
Kress G, Van Leeuwen T (1996) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London:
Routledge.
Kress G, Van Leeuwen T (2001) Multimodal Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Lemke JL (1998) Multiplying meaning: visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In: Martin
JR and Veel R (eds) Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourse of
Science. London: Routledge, 87113.
Lemke JL (2000a) Multimedia genres for science education and scientific literacy. In: Schleppegrell
M and Colombi MC (eds) Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second Languages.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 2144.
Lemke JL (2000b) Multimedia literacy demands of the scientific curriculum. Linguistics and
Education 10: 24771.
Lemke JL (2002) Travels in hypermodality. Visual Communication 3: 299325.
Li Q (2009) Multimodal discourse analysis of pedagogical discourse. MA Thesis, Xiamen
University, China.
Li S (2011) Multimodal discourse analysis of New Horizon College English Coursebook. MA
Thesis, Southwest University, China.
Murray J (2013) Composing multimodality. In: Lutkewitte C (ed) Multimodal Composition: A
Critical Sourcebook. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.
Nation P (2005) Range program with GSL/AWL list [computer software]. Available at: www.
victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/paul-nation (accessed 1 May 2011).
OHalloran KL (1999a) Interdependence, interaction and metaphor in multisemiotic texts. Social
Semiotics 3: 31754.
OHalloran KL (1999b) Towards a systemic functional analysis of multisemiotic mathematic
texts. Semiotica 124: 129.
Liu and Qu 149

OHalloran KL (2005) Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images.

London: Continuum.
Petrie G (2003) ESL teachers views on visual language: a grounded theory. The Reading Matrix
3 (3): 13768.
Qin X (2007) Zooming In: An Integrated English Course of New Century College English 14.
Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Qin X (2008a) Zooming in on the learner and texta brief introduction to Zooming In: An
Integrated English Course of New Century College English. Foreign Language World 1: 26.
Qin X (2008b) Adhering to the humanistic concept of teaching and learning and implementing
College English Curriculum Requirements in an all-round way. Computer-Assisted Foreign
Language Education 5: 37.
Royce TD (1998) Synergy on the page: exploring intersemiotic complementarity in page-based
multimodal text. JASFL Occasional Papers 1: 2550.
Royce TD (2000) The visual and the verbal: an investigation of ideational intersemiotic comple-
mentarity in page-based science text. In Language, Media and Science Education [SFL per-
spectives on science and education]. Colloquium conducted at the meeting of the American
Association for Applied Linguistics, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Royce TD (2007) Intersemiotic complementarity: a framework for multimodal discourse analy-
sis. In: Royce TD and Bowcher WL (eds) New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal
Discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 63110.
Tan Y (2012) A multimodal discourse analysis of the senior high school English textbooks
Advance with English. MA Thesis, Hunan University of Science and Technology, China.
Thilbault PJ (2001) Multimodality and the school science textbook. In: Taylor-Torsello C, Penello
N (eds) Corpora Testuali per Ricerca, Tradusionee Apprendimento Linguistico. Padua:
Unipress, 293335.
Wysocki AF (2002) Teaching Writing with Computers: An Introduction, 3rd ed. Boston, MA:
Houghton-Mifflin, 182201.

Appendix

Figure 3. Pages 96-97 of EE.

150 RELC Journal 45(2)

Figure 4. Pages 66-67 of NCCE.

Figure 5. Pages 40-41 of NCCE.