Picture This

Elizabeth De Groot ; Catherine Nickerson Zayed University ; Hubert Korzilius Radboud University Nijmegen ; Marinel Gerritsen Radboud University Nijmegen

Abstract

Corporate documents increasingly rely on visual rhetoric to complement text. Although previous studies have indicated that companies’ local culture may be reflected in the images they employ, scholars have never systematically investigated the use of visual rhetoric as it is used across different business cultures. This study analyzes visual rhetoric using a new model of visual metadiscourse—a set of devices that designers use to convey meaning in order to influence the audience’s interpretation of the text. The study compares the visual metadiscourse in photos used in English management statements in the annual reports of Dutch and U.K. companies. The results show that metadiscourse is inherent not only in the written text of a corporate document but also in the visuals that a design team chooses to include. The results also indicate that despite some similarities, Dutch-based and U.K.-based statements contain differences in their use of visual metadiscourse. Several of these differences can be attributed to cultural differences between the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The study underlines the applicability of the new model and warns international text designers not to overlook cultural differences in visual metadiscourse.

Journal
Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Published
2016-04-01
DOI
10.1177/1050651915620235
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Cites in this index (6)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  3. Technical Communication Quarterly
  4. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  5. Written Communication
Show all 6 →
  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
Also cites 55 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1108/14691931111123421
  2. 10.1080/13527260500247827
  3. 10.2307/1511498
  4. 10.1016/j.bar.2014.05.001
  5. 10.1177/0021943607313993
  6. 10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00049-6
  7. 10.1177/1750481309351208
  8. 10.1080/13602380500135836
  9. 10.1177/0021943610364523
  10. 10.1075/ijcl.9.2.06con
  11. 10.1016/j.aos.2009.03.003
  12. 10.1016/j.cpa.2010.06.010
  13. 10.1016/j.aos.2014.01.001
  14. 10.1109/TPC.2010.2099791
  15. 10.1109/TPC.2006.880755
  16. 10.1108/13563281211253593
  17. 10.1016/j.cpa.2010.05.001
  18. 10.1177/026192702237956
  19. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02658.x
  20. 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80026-6
  21. 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00117-4
  22. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00377.x
  23. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00532.x
  24. 10.1016/S0147-1767(00)00007-9
  25. 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2004.00372.x
  26. 10.1177/002194369803500203
  27. 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
  28. 10.35360/njes.220
  29. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.04.004
  30. 10.1093/applin/25.2.156
  31. 10.1109/TPC.2014.2311872
  32. 10.1075/ijcl.6.1.05kil
  33. 10.1177/1750481309102450
  34. 10.1108/13527600110797218
  35. 10.1109/47.475590
  36. 10.1109/TPC.2007.914869
  37. 10.4324/9780203619728
  38. 10.1016/0147-1767(78)90029-9
  39. 10.1145/564376.564403
  40. 10.1109/47.475591
  41. 10.5465/19416520.2013.781867
  42. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.012
  43. 10.1163/9789004483842
  44. 10.1108/02651330210435690
  45. 10.1177/002194369803500302
  46. 10.1177/0021943607313990
  47. 10.1016/S0361-3682(98)00066-X
  48. 10.1515/9783110871609
  49. 10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00024-7
  50. 10.1177/0021943605279244
  51. 10.1108/03090560510572025
  52. 10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00482-4
  53. 10.1109/TPC.2005.849659
  54. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.02.005
  55. 10.1177/1750481312439818
CrossRef global citation count: 29 View in citation network →