Multimodal Semiotics and Collaborative Design

follow similar considerations of experiential, interpersonal and textual characteristics to physical
buildings. On the other hand, the aforementioned characteristics also show domain-specific
affordances and constraints, mainly because of digital mediation of bodily and spatial experiences.
Therefore, in my analytical framework, I use O’Toole’s model to describe the three meta-functions,
while the design elements in virtual constructions and their structural ranks of scale show
differences in my model. I use ‘ (a) virtual places (sims or parcels), (b) their divisions and
elevations in virtual space, (c) interaction spaces, and (d) elements (artifacts and surfaces)’ as the
four categories to explain the ranks of scale in construction, rather than O’Toole’s (2004) ‘building,
floor, room, element’ scale. My aim is to contribute to the theory by proposing an analytical model
for these computer-mediated social environments through the multimodal analysis of their sociosemiotic
functions, and how the co-designers intend to communicate their rhetorical intentions in
orchestration of experiential, interpersonal and textual meaning potentials.
Relations of design, genre and mode in multimodal discourses
The systemic functional framework provides the essential analytical model for the study of socially
constructed discourses, which are built on the many possible semiotic code systems. Drawing from
Michel Foucault (1982), Kress (2010: 110) describes discourse as “meaning resources available in a
society to make sense of the world, social and natural, at a larger level.” For social semiotic theory,
discourses are socially constructed means of knowing particular aspects of reality (Kress and van
Leeuwen 2001). Kress and van Leeuwen (2001) study multimodal discourses in images, and social
factors that shape their production, by referring to provenance and experiential meaning potential
as two fundamental principles. In their perspective of multimodal discourse, experiential meaning
potentials are based on “the idea that signifiers have a meaning potential deriving from what it is
we do when we produce them, and from our ability to turn action into knowledge” (Kress and van
Leeuwen 2001: 10).
Discourse affects choice of design, but choice of design in turn affects design” (Kress and van
Leeuwen 2001: 128)
Discourse constitutes the ideological component of sign-making and it includes the assessment of
rhetorical intentions and semiotic resources of the environment. Discourse shapes the world of
knowledge by organizing meanings as potentials to be used/realized. Genre, on the other hand,
constrains discourse by contextualizing, locating and situating meaning in social spaces. Discourse
works within the level of potentials and possibilities to make the meaning, while genre refers to
standards and conventions to frame the meaning for representation. Therefore, while discourse
operates primarily on the level of the social, genre is tightly bound to (and limited by) the context
67