Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://lal.sagepub.com
Educating the eye?: Kress and Van Leeuwen's Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual
Design(1996)
Charles Forceville
Language and Literature 1999; 8; 163
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://lal.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/2/163
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Poetics and Linguistics Association
Additional services and information for Language and Literature can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://lal.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://lal.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
R E V I E W A RT I C L E
Educating the eye?
Kress and Van Leeuwens Reading Images:
The Grammar of Visual Design (1996)
Charles Forceville, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam/
Rijksuniversiteit Leiden (OSL), The Netherlands
Abstract
This review article of Kress and Van Leeuwens (KvL) Reading Images: The Grammar
of Visual Design (1996) begins by giving a summary of its main issues, and highlights
its innovative and bold proposals. In the following sections, some weaknesses and
controversial aspects of the book are discussed. Both are seen as following from the
semiotic and ideological approach adopted by the authors. Specifically, these affect the
proposals for the classification and interpretation of images, and the degree to which the
concepts delineated are generalizable. In the later sections, tentative suggestions are
made as to how KvLs approach is relevant to the currently emerging cognitivist
paradigm.
Keywords: categorization; cognitivism; genre; ideological criticism; interpretation of
images; metaphor; relevance theory; semiotics; word & image relations
1 Introduction
Although contemporary society is flooded with images, we have few studies that
provide practical suggestions for the analysis of images and word & image texts
as distinct from more or less theoretical reflections on that topic (e.g. Arnheim,
1969; Aumont, 1997; Mitchell, 1986; Sonesson, 1988; Thompson, 1996).
Gunther Kress and Theo Van Leeuwen make a courageous attempt to help fill
the glaring gap with a book ambitiously titled Reading Images: The Grammar of
Visual Design, a revised version of their earlier Reading Images (1990). In this
review article I will first present an outline of the books contents. Given the wide
range of topics Kress and Van Leeuwen (henceforth KvL) address, this outline
cannot be complete, but it briefly touches upon the studys main issues and gives
samples of their approach. Subsequently I discuss some issues in more detail,
indicating where KvLs ideas in my view require qualification. To come clean
straight away: I find the book exciting, thought-provoking and readable, but I have
serious misgivings about a number of methodological issues, and some hesitation
about the ideological framework. These significantly affect the tool-kit character
of the book, which thus is not quite the unproblematic textbook its title promises.
In the later sections of this article I will suggest how KvLs views might be
embedded in a cognitivist approach an approach which I believe will ultimately
CHARLES FORCEVILLE
164
yield a more inclusive theory of the image than KvLs semiotically and
ideologically oriented one.
165
These three metafunctions, adapted from Hallidayan grammar, are not limited to
a specific medium. The ideational metafunction pertains to the ways in which
semiotic systems can refer to objects in the outside world, and the relations
between these objects, the interpersonal metafunction deals with the relations
between sender and receiver of the sign, and the textual metafunction accounts
for the options available to ensure that signs form complexes of signs, that is,
texts. The three metafunctions structure Chapters 2 to 6 of the book.
In Chapter 2, KvL introduce the notion of vector as the pictorial equivalent of
the action verb. Real or virtual lines between human elements in a picture
function in ways similar to verbs describing relations between what in Hallidayan
grammar are actors and goals. Since actions presuppose human or human-like
agency, vectorial patterns are called narrative, six major types being identified.
These types are to be contrasted with conceptual pictures, which represent
participants in terms of their class, structure or meaning, in other words, in terms
of their generalized and more or less stable and timeless essence (p. 56). KvL
point out that the distinction applies not only to naturalistic pictures but also to
diagrams.
Three main types of conceptual representations are identified in Chapter 3. The
first is constituted by classificational processes, which relate participants to one
another in a taxonomy on the basis of some feature they share. KvL nicely
illustrate that classificational taxonomies have a tendency to equate all elements
depicted on the same level in terms of one dimension, and that this may disguise
crucial inequalities. The physical orientation of taxonomies (topdown,
bottomup, leftright) is discussed and some implications are suggested. Even the
way in which diagrammatic lines in classificational structures are drawn is not
neutral, KvL suggest: straight and curved lines evoke connotations of cold
rationality and organicity respectively. The second type of conceptual process is
labelled analytical and pertains to the depiction of partwhole structures. The
third type is symbolic processes. These pertain to the relation between some
element in a picture and what it symbolizes.
Chapter 4 shifts to the interaction between pictures and their viewers. A first
important difference arises from whether or not participants in pictures look
directly at the viewer. In the former case the participant appeals to the viewer, in a
so-called demand picture; in the latter case the participant is the object rather
than the subject of the look. These latter are offer pictures.1 KvL claim that in an
Australian primary school textbook the Aboriginal people are typically depicted
as offers, and hence as objects of contemplation (p. 126), while white
immigrants are rendered as demands. But the authors acknowledge that
sometimes (e.g. in film and newsreading) it is simply genre conventions which
dictate the choice between offers and demands. Similar valuations may adhere to
the distance of the depicted participants, objects or events from the camera. Closeup, medium shot and long shot suggest increasing social distance, but again,
certain frame sizes have become conventionalized in certain types of depiction. In
a later section, KvL propose a bold correlation between involvement with the
CHARLES FORCEVILLE
166
depicted participants and the horizontal angle, which can be frontal or oblique.
Discussing two photographs of Aborigines, they conclude: The frontal angle
says, as it were: what you see here is part of our world, something we are
involved with. The oblique angle says: what you see here is not part of our
world; it is their world, something we are not involved with. The producers of
these two photographs have, perhaps unconsciously, aligned themselves with the
white teachers and their teaching tools, but not with the Aborigines (p. 143,
emphasis, as elsewhere, in original) and the viewer has no choice but to share
their perspective.
Pictures reflect different claims to verisimilitude. Chapter 5 deals with this
degree of a pictures commitment to the truthfulness to reality, a dimension of
pictures KvL call modality.2 In language, (epistemic) modality is expressed by
such auxiliary verbs as may, will and must, and adjectives such as possible,
probable and certain. KvL distinguish between eight dimensions that codetermine the degree of naturalness of a picture. It is pointed out that what
constitutes naturalness, and hence also deviation from naturalness, via any of the
eight dimensions, may vary across different realms of pictures.
The meaning of composition is addressed in Chapter 6. Pictures, including
multimodal texts, give significant information through the ways in which their
elements are arranged. Three aspects are distinguished: the zone in which an
element occurs (left/right, bottom/top, centre/margin); the salience bestowed on
it (via foregrounding/ backgrounding, relative size, colour, etc.); and framing
devices such as vectors between participants. Particularly in the discussion of
zones, KvL come up with bold proposals. They suggest that (in western society)
the left is the region of the given and the right the region of the new; and that
the top is the region of the ideal, whereas the bottom depicts the real.
Centremargin spatial structures obviously stress the former at the expense of the
latter. Leftright and topdown orientations often combine with centremargin
ones, KvL argue, for instance in so-called triptychs. The last section is devoted
to a discussion of the greater flexibility in reading paths in pictorial or
multimedial texts than in (more linear) verbal texts.
Meaning inheres not simply in what is depicted, but also in how the depiction
is conveyed materially. This issue is the central concern of Chapter 7. KvL
distinguish three major categories: inscription by hand, recording technologies
and synthesizing technologies. Each of these modes of inscription models its
own relations between the producer and receiver of an image, while the
distribution of the image, too, is affected. Types of brushstroke (vigorous, thin,
pointillist, etc.) and surface materials (canvas, marble, wax, etc.) co-determine the
overall impact and connotations that a representation is likely to realize.
In their last full chapter, KvL tentatively explore the area of the threedimensional image, ranging from sculptures to childrens toys. While many of the
concepts delineated with respect to the two-dimensional image are applicable to
the three-dimensional as well, there are some obvious differences. For instance,
there are often no fixed perspectives from which to look at sculptures, spatial
167
3 Classifications
KvL are social semioticians, and it is typical of semiotic approaches that they
present phenomena in terms of oppositions, often in grid patterns or tree
diagrams. This, of course, is in itself a commendable way of defining similarities
and differences. Charting a new field involves categorizing, if possible
hierarchically, a hitherto undivided mass of data. KvL regularly summarize the
pertinent distinctions they have found in a tree diagram, followed by a section,
Realizations, in which they briefly describe the sub-categories (some of the
either/or type, others of the and/and type) in the tree. The usefulness of these
hierarchical categories will depend on their applicability to new pictures. While
the authors describe and illustrate all their categories, not all of them are included
in the Realizations sections. Why not? The number of levels distinguished can
amount to no fewer than six (p. 107, see Figure 1 in Appendix). We need all the
help and examples we can get to be persuaded that the schema in Figure 1 is
correct and applicable, but often we have to make do with a short description and
a single example of each slot in the schema and the (arbitrary?) absence of
several subtypes in the Realizations section is irritating. A more serious problem
is that according to Figure 1 inclusive spatial structures cannot be conductive,
since conductivity is one of the subdivisions of exhaustive, but not of
inclusive. Exhaustive structures, KvL explain, depict all the elements their
carriers comprise, whereas inclusive structures do not. The latter select only a few
elements for depiction. Thus a technical drawing of a machine may (exhaustively)
depict all of its parts, or it may (inclusively) highlight only some of them. Now
conductors are said to indicate a potential for dynamic interaction between the
Possessive Attributes they connect (p. 100). Examples of conductors are a
pipeline, a road, a railway track, but they may also be of a more abstract kind. It is
clear that an exhaustive technical drawing of a machine can be conductive, but I
CHARLES FORCEVILLE
168
cannot see why an inclusive technical drawing of a machine may not be equally
conductive. However, in the scheme this possibility is excluded.
Here is a comparable issue. In Chapter 5, KvL devote a section to markers of
visual modality. They define eight markers: colour saturation, colour
differentiation, colour modulation, contextualization, representation, depth,
illumination and brightness. They say sensible things about each of these markers,
but there is little discussion on how some of them (notably the first three) relate to
one another, and how they can be used in the practical analysis of specific
pictures. In the ensuing section, coding orientation, KvL argue that what
constitutes the highest modality (that is, what is considered most normal)
depends on the kind of picture discussed. They distinguish the following four
coding orientations: scientific/technological, sensory, abstract and naturalistic.
The abstract coding orientations
are used by sociocultural elites in high art, in academic and scientific
contexts, and so on. In such contexts modality is higher the more an image
reduces the individual to the general, and the concrete to its essential qualities.
The ability to produce and/or read texts grounded in this coding orientation is a
mark of social distinction, of being an educated person or a serious artist.
(p. 170)
In diagram 5.5 (p. 171) the modality values of colour saturation are given for each
of the four orientations. Highest modality in the abstract orientation is black and
white. Whereas this may be an accurate description of scientific pictures and
diagrams, I am by no means convinced that the same standard applies to high
art. KvL seem to have some doubts, too, for after discussing a number of
paintings they admit that the examples in the previous section show that the
modality values in art can be complex and a few lines later they go even further:
in many other kinds of images, too, modality markers do not move en bloc in a
particular direction across the scales, say from the abstract to the sensory, but
behave in relatively independent ways (p. 176). But then, of course, one wonders
what is the relation between the different modality markers, and what conclusions
one may draw on the basis of a certain marker having high or low modality.
This is not nit-picking: these difficulties point to a more basic problem, namely,
the problem of categorization. Of course the delimitation of categories and the
development of criteria to decide membership or non-membership of an item in a
category are crucial to scholarship of any kind. But the problem is that categories
are seldom clear-cut; many categories are fuzzy, and describe a continuum
between extremes rather than a binary opposition with an either/or structure. At
the end of a discussion about classificational processes, KvL themselves draw
attention to this danger: Our discussion above has, we hope, made it clear that we
see these distinctions as tools with which to describe visual structures rather than
that specific, concrete visuals can necessarily always be described exhaustively
and uniquely in terms of any one of our categories (p. 88). However, this caution
is usually absent when KvL present their own classifications; the typically
169
semiotic either/or branches3 as well as the hierarchical structure hide the fact of
fuzziness, suggest exhaustiveness and hint at stable, authoritative hierarchies. In
this respect, KvL might have benefited from Roschs work on prototype theory,
a notion that is central to Lakoffs famous Women, Fire and Dangerous Things
(1987). Lakoff rejects the notion that something is either absolutely in, or outside
of, a category in favour of the notion that categories are radial structures, with
more and less prototypical members. His book appears in KvLs bibliography, so
one would have expected the authors at least to discuss, and possibly even to
accommodate, this very different view of categorization.4
CHARLES FORCEVILLE
170
171
cool attempt to analyse what is, presumably, objectively there. Surely the whole
point of developing a visual grammar makes sense only if there is general (withinculture) agreement about the presence and effects of at least some aspects in a
picture, and these intersubjectively establishable aspects need to be identified and
described before any valuations or interpretations are attached to them.
A similar problem surfaces in KvLs discussions of various childrens
drawings. The interpretations are fascinating, but there is no way in which the
reader/viewer can verify them empirically. Here is an example:
Figure 4.27 is the front cover of a story on sailing boats by a child The
characters [in the boat] do not look at us. The angle is frontal and eye level,
and the two figures in the boat are neither particularly distant, nor particularly
close. There is no setting, no texture, no colour, no light and shade. But for
the two figures, simply drawn, and more or less identical, except for their size
(a father and son?), this could be a technical drawing. As such it suits the
objective, generic, title, Sailing Boats. In most of the illustrations inside
the [visual] essay, no human figures are seen, as though the child already
understands that the learning of technical matters should be preceded by a
human element to attract non-initiates to the subject. (p. 158)
Well, yes, possibly but this remains rather speculative. First, as in the preceding
case, the authors invoke context in the form of (a) verbal anchoring, via the title,
and (b) other pictures in the pictorial essay. Again, the picture is interpreted, not
simply as an isolated representation but as a word & image text, and moreover as
part of a more comprehensive whole. If this is crucial to KvLs interpretation,
however, a grammar of pictures is after all quite heavily dependent on textual
anchoring and (pictorial) context, but KvL do not pay much attention to the
interaction between pictures and (con)text. Although they profess to be aware of
the importance of context, their concepts and models do not specify how context
must be incorporated (for alternative approaches, see Cook, 1992; Forceville,
1996). And if KvL are allowed to speculate about the drawings meaning, so is
everybody else. Let me try: the boat sails from right to left. Given the importance
of leftright orientations in pictures in terms of givennew, it is clear that the child
has a longing for the given rather than the new. The boat sails toward the given,
the past, turning its stern to the new, the future, and the child may suffer from
regressive behaviour and fear of the future. Moreover, the title of the drawing
occurs in the top half of the drawing, that is, in the region of the ideal, while the
picture is underneath. The child is thus rooted in the pictorial, but aspires to
language. Sensible? Flippant? I am sure that KvL have hit upon important
distinctions, but they do not specify when bottom/up and left/right orientations do
apply and when they do not. In several instances, KvL are carried away by their
theoretical and ideological framework, arbitrarily or rigidly applying it to new
pictures, and this sometimes yields highly unconvincing results. A full-blown
visual grammar should predict, or at least suggest, under what conditions certain
rules operate. But acceptable or valid interpretations of a picture may reside less
CHARLES FORCEVILLE
172
173
insights are to be gained from the following lines of research. In the first place,
the notion of text-external context (to be distinguished from text-internal context,
see Forceville, 1996: Ch. 4, et passim), in the widest sense of the word, needs to
be studied and theorized. Contexts not only affect the interpretation of images (as
they affect the interpretation of any type of texts); they often crucially codetermine them. Irony, for instance, can only be detected against the background
of extra-textual background assumptions. More generally, what is needed is an
awareness of authorial intentions that underlie pictures, and genre is a great help
in this respect. Interpretations of a picture will be considerably constrained by the
awareness that it belongs to a certain genre. Other aspects of text-external factors
that may influence interpretation pertain to the identity of the viewer. Gender, age
and cultural background may all play a role in this respect. That is, a textimmanent analysis of pictures needs to be systematically complemented by
pragmatic analyses (cf. Pateman, 1980). This brings me to a second line of
necessary research: empirical testing. Hypotheses about the impact of variables of
genre and of audiences upon interpretation can and must be tested. Work done by
empiricists working on literary texts can help focus ideas on how this is to be
done (cf. Ibsch et al., 1991; Steen, 1994; Zwaan, 1993). Moreover, some
empirical work on the interpretation of various types of images has already been
done (Camargo, 1987; Forceville, 1995; Mick and Politi, 1989; Morley, 1983;
Petterson, 1995; see also the extensive bibliographies in Braden, 1996 and
Moriarty and Kenney, 1995).
CHARLES FORCEVILLE
174
175
7 Concluding remarks
In this review article I began by giving an outline of KvLs book and indicating
some of its strengths, and proceeded by voicing a number of serious criticisms of
its methodological weaknesses and ideological commitments. I ended by
embedding these views in broader concerns not necessarily shared by KvL
themselves. It might seem that my respect for, and excitement about, KvLs book
have become somewhat buried under the criticisms. Let me therefore repeat that I
think that Reading Images is significant and innovative. KvL present a host of
concepts and tools for the analysis of pictures, many of them illuminating and
unexpected. The wealth of pictures and discussions in their attractively produced
book provides ample food for thought and further theorizing. Because of the way
they present their concepts, and the applications to specific pictures, their work
has the merit of being amply verifiable and falsifiable. As I explained, I am by no
means convinced of the general applicability of a number of their concepts, but by
making explicit claims they do open up opportunities for counterclaims, based on
other pictorial data and/or experimental research. Given its format, KvLs study is
clearly intended to be used as a textbook, presumably at undergraduate level. In
view of its methodological deficiencies and strong ideological commitment, this
entails some dangers. Nonetheless, the gains are worth the risks, on condition that
KvLs ideas are subjected to highly critical scrutiny: partly by juxtaposing the
book with more theoretically oriented approaches, some of which have been
suggested in this article, partly by systematic testing of the concepts against new
pictorial material.
Acknowledgment
I thank Leo Hoek, Elrud Ibsch, Lachlan Mackenzie, and Ed Tan (all Vrije
Universiteit Amsterdam) for their comments on earlier drafts of this review
article. The responsibility for its contents remains entirely mine.
Notes
1
2
3
4
The contrast recalls the difference between the (impertinent, colonizing) gaze and the (dialogic)
glance. First proposed by Norman Bryson, the distinction was popularized by Mieke Bal.
Surprisingly, KvL do not refer to Bals work on gaze/glance here, although they include her
book in their bibliography and curiously they cite the Dutch (Bal, 1990) rather than the more
widely accessible English version (Bal, 1991).
Note that what KvL subsume under the general heading of modality here is what in Simpson
(1993: Ch. 3) is equivalent to one main type of modality out of four, namely, epistemic
modality.
As indicated, KvL also use symbols in their diagram to indicate that certain dimensions can cooccur in a single picture. But here, too, one wants to know under what conditions this is possible.
By contrast, Sonesson, who also works in a semiotic framework, is acutely aware of the
CHARLES FORCEVILLE
176
5
6
theoretical threat of prototype theory to traditional semiotic accounts, and discusses prototype
theory at considerable length (Sonesson, 1988: 66 f.).
Moreover, verbal transitivity, which for KvL is the paradigm upon which they model pictorial
transitivity, is by no means a simple case. It is, as Hopper and Thompson (1980) show, a matter
of degree, and hence itself subject to prototype effects.
KvL are, however, not likely to sympathize with, or perhaps even accept as possible, cognitivists
attempts to distinguish between what is more or less neutrally there and any ideological
valuations that adhere to this more or less neutral nucleus.
References
Arnheim, R. (1969) Visual Thinking. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
Aumont, J. (1997) The Image. Trans. by Claire Pajackowska. London: British Film Institute.
Originally published as LImage (1990).
Bal, M. (1990) Verf en Verderf: Lezen in Rembrandt. Amsterdam: Prometheus.
Bal, M. (1991) Reading Rembrandt: Beyond the WordImage Opposition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Barthes, R. (1986/1964) Rhetoric of the Image, in R. Barthes, The Responsibility of Forms, trans. R.
Howard, pp. 2140. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bordwell, D. (1985) Narration in the Fiction Film. London: Methuen.
Bordwell, D. and Carroll, N., eds (1996) Post-Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Braden, R.A. (1996) Visual Literacy, Journal of Visual Literacy 16 (2): 983.
Camargo, E.G. (1987) The Measurement of Meaning: Sherlock Holmes in Pursuit of the Marlboro
Man, in J. Umiker-Sebeok (ed.) Marketing and Semiotics: New Directions in the Study of Signs
for Sale, pp. 46383. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Carroll, N. (1996) Theorizing the Moving Image. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, G. (1992) The Discourse of Advertising. London: Routledge.
Cook, G. (1994) Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and Mind. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Forceville, C. (1995) IBM is a Tuning Fork Degrees of Freedom in the Interpretation of Pictorial
Metaphors, Poetics 23(3): 189218.
Forceville, C. (1996) Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London: Routledge.
Gibbs, R.W., Jr (1994) The Poetics of the Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodman, S. (1995) Triadic Pictures, Chapter 4 in Aesthetics and Consensus: Verbal and Visual
Poetics in Newspaper Discourse, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of East Anglia,
Norwich, England.
Hopper, P.J. and Thompson, S.A. (1980) Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse, Language 56(1):
25199.
Hurst, M. (1996) Erzhlsituationen in Literatur und Film: Ein Modell zur Vergleichenden Analyse von
Literarischen Texten und Filmischen Adaptionen. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer.
Ibsch, E., Schram, D. and Steen, G.J., eds (1991) Empirical Studies of Literature. Amsterdam, Atlanta,
GA: Rodopi.
Johnson, M. (1987) The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M. (1995) Introduction: Why Metaphor Matters to Philosophy, Metaphor and Symbolic
Activity 10(3): 15762.
Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (1990) Reading Images. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (1996) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London:
Routledge.
Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993) The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, in A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and
Thought, pp. 20251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
177
Mick, D.G. and Politi, L.G. (1989) Consumers Interpretations of Advertising Imagery: A Visit to the
Hell of Connotation, in E. Hirschman (ed.) Interpretive Consumer Research, pp. 8596. Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Mitchell, W.J.T. (1986) Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Moriarty, S.E. and Kenney, K. (1995) Visual Communication: A Taxonomy and Bibliography,
Journal of Visual Literacy 15(2): 7156.
Morley, D. (1983) Cultural Transformations: The Politics of Resistance, in H. Davis and P. Walton
(eds) Language, Image, Media, pp. 10419. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pateman, T. (1980) How to Do Things with Images: An Essay on the Pragmatics of Advertising in T.
Pateman Language, Truth and Politics, pp. 21537. Lewes, East Sussex: Jean Stroud.
Petterson, R. (1995) Associations from Pictures, in D.G. Beauchamp, R.A. Braden and R.E. Griffin
(eds) Imagery and Visual Literacy, pp. 13644. Blacksburg, VA: International Visual Literacy
Association.
Simpson, P. (1993) Language, Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge.
Sonesson, G. (1988) Pictorial Concepts. Lund: Lund University Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Steen, G.J. (1994) Understanding Metaphor in Literature: An Empirical Approach. London:
Longman.
Thompson, J., ed. (1996) Towards a Theory of the Image. Maastricht: Jan van Eyck Akademie.
Turner, M. (1991) Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zwaan, R.A. (1993) Aspects of Literary Comprehension: A Cognitive Approach. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Address
Charles Forceville, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Arts, P.O. Box 7161, 1007 MC
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [email: forcevilc@let.vu.nl]
178
Appendix
CHARLES FORCEVILLE