Multimodal Mediation and Argumentative Writing: A Case Study of a Multilingual Learner’s Metalanguage Awareness Development

  • Dong-shin ShinEmail author
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 33)


This case study investigates the designing processes of the argumentative multimodal writing of a sixth grade bilingual student in an English language arts class. Drawing on social semiotics, it looks at how one student appropriated the semiotic affordances available in multimodal writing with digital technologies and how multimodal writing practices shaped his argumentative writing process and metalanguage development. Findings show that the student’s developing awareness of metafunctions and metalanguages of various semiotic modes and intermodal relations allowed him to realize the register of argument (i.e., that there should be a memorial for the victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting tragedy) in his text.


Social semiotics Multimodal writing Metalanguage Bilingual learners 


  1. Atkinson, T., & Swaggerty, E. (2011). Empowering fourth-grade researchers: Reaping the rewards of Web 2.0 student-centered learning. Language Arts, 89(2), 99–112.Google Scholar
  2. Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calkins, L. (2010). Launch intermediate writing workshop getting started with units of study for teaching writing grades 3–5. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  4. Daly, A., & Unsworth, L. (2011). Analysis and comprehension of multimodal texts. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(1), 61–68.Google Scholar
  5. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2003). The landscape of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Dyson, A. (2003). Brothers and sisters learn to write. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  8. Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research (NCELTR).Google Scholar
  9. Fei, V. L. (2004). Developing an integrative multisemiotic model. In K. O’Halloran (Ed.), Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 220–246). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  10. Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to school reform in the United States. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gebhard, M., Shin, D., & Seger, W. (2011). Blogging, systemic functional linguistics, and L2 academic literacies in an urban elementary school. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 278–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gee, J., & Hayes, E. (2011). Language and learning in the digital age. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  14. Harman, R. (2013). Intertextuality in genre-register pedagogies: Building the field in L2 fifth grade literary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jewitt, C. (2002). The move from page to screen: The multimodal reshaping of school English. Visual Communication, 1(2), 171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (2003). Introduction. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 1–18). New York: Lang.Google Scholar
  17. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Lam, W. S. E., & Warriner, D. (2012). Transnationalism and literacy: Investigating the mobility of people, languages, texts, and practices in contexts of migration. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leander, K. (2009). Composing with old and new media: Toward parallel pedagogy. In V. Carrington & M. Robinson (Eds.), Digital literacies: Social learning and classroom practices (pp. 147–164). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu, Y., & O’Halloran, K. L. (2009). Intersemiotic texture: Analyzing cohesive devices between language and images. Social Semiotics, 19(4), 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register, and genre. In F. Christie (Ed.), Children writing: A reader (pp. 21–29). Geelong: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Martin, J. R. (2002). Fair trade: Negotiating meaning in multimodal texts. In P. Coppock (Ed.), The semiotics of writing: Transdisciplinary perspectives on the technology of writing (pp. 311–338). Begijnhof: Brepols/Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  29. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  30. McKee, H. (2006). Sound matters: Notes toward the analysis and design of sound in multimodal web texts. Computers and Composition, 23(3), 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: The Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  32. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  33. O’Halloran, K. (2004). Multimodal discourse analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  34. Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86–123). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  35. Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Schleppegrell, M., & Go, A. (2007). Analyzing the writing of English learners: A functional approach. Language Arts, 84(6), 529–538.Google Scholar
  37. Shanahan, L. E. (2013). Composing “kid-friendly” multimodal text: When conversations, instruction, and signs come together. Written Communication, 30(2), 194–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shin, D. (2014). Web 2.0 tools and academic literacy development in a US urban school: A case study of a second grade English language learner. Language and Education, 28(1), 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shin, D., & Cimasko, T. (2008). Multimodal design and Second Language composition: New tools, traditional norms. Computers and Composition, 25(4), 373–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smagorinsky, P. (1995). Constructing meaning in the disciplines: Reconceptualizing writing across the curriculum as composing across the curriculum. American Journal of Education, 103(2), 160–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stewart, M. (2014). Social networking, workplace, and entertainment literacies: The out-of-school literate lives of newcomer adolescent immigrants. Literacy Research and Instruction, 53, 347–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Toohey, K., Dagenais, D., Fodor, A., Hof, L., Nunez, O., Singh, A., & Schulze, L. (2015). “That Sounds So Cooool”: Entanglements of children, digital tools, and literacy practices. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 461–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Unsworth, L. (2006). Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interactions. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 55–76.Google Scholar
  45. van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech, music, sound. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Leeuwen, T. (2003). A multimodal perspective on composition. In T. Ensink & C. Sauer (Eds.), Framing and perspectivising in discourse (pp. 23–61). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Yi, Y. (2007). Engaging literacy: A biliterate student’s composing practices beyond school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CincinattiCincinattiUSA

Personalised recommendations