How Is Meaning Constructed Multimodally?—A Case Study of PowerPoint Presentations in an MA Thesis Defense
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1206.13Keywords:
multimodality, ppt presentation, MA thesis defense, genreAbstract
Taking the theory of multimodal analysis as the theoretical basis and 7 ppts in an MA thesis defense as the research data, this paper uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the distribution and realizations of types and modalities of PPTs in this MA thesis defense. The results show that the analyzing type accounts for the highest proportion to make sure the PPT defense presentation is academic and serious. The use of connecting, persuading, and prompting types has a strong personal tendency, varying from person to person. The visualizing type takes up the lowest proportion among them, indicating that pictures are the last modality that demonstrators tend to use. The paper further explores how meanings of MA thesis defense are constructed multimodally, and investigates the characteristics of PPT as a thesis defense genre, aiming to give some suggestions and instruction on ppt presentation for thesis defenses.
References
Altman, R. (2004). The Deadly Sins of Modern PowerPoint Usage. Online Corporation. (accessed 25/6/2021).
Gu Ping. (2017). The construction of pragmatic identity in the defense of master's thesis for English majors. Master dissertation, Xi’an Technological University.
Gu Yueguo. (2007). Analysis of multimedia and multimodal learning. Technology Enhanced Foreign Languages, (02), 3-12.
Hu Zhuanglin, (2007). PowerPoint: Tool, Text, Genre, and Style. Foreign Language Education, 28(4), 4-5.
Ke Xianbing. (2010). Research on defense response strategies based on the types of questions in defense conversation. Journal of Xianning College, (04), 93-97.
Knoblauch, H. (2012). PowerPoint, communication, and the knowledge society. London: Cambridge University Press.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. The modes and media of contemporary communication. (Cappelen, London 2001).
Li Na, & Jing Xiaoping. (2019). The construction of respondent's pragmatic identity in academic interaction. Journal of Zhejiang International Studies University, (01), 41-47.
Recski, L. (2005). Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: A functional account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes, 24(1), 5-23.
Simons, T. (2005). Does PowerPoint make you stupid. Presentations, 1(8), 3.
Tuffe Edward, R. (2003). PowerPoint is Evil. Weird Minizine. (accessed 25/6/2021).
Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (2007). Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: Cultural perspectives on the regulation of discourse and organizations. IN Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (Eds.), The PowerPoint presentation and its corollaries: How genres shape communicative action in organizations. New York: Routledge, 67-92.
Zhang Delu. (2009). Application of multimodal Discourse Theory and media technology in foreign language teaching. Foreign Language Education, (04), 15-20.
Zhou Xinnian, Zhang Zhenxiong, & Qiu Rongzu. (2008). Process and skills of master's thesis defense. Chinese Forestry Education, (03), 44-46.
Zhu Yongsheng. (2007). Theoretical basis and research methods of multimodal discourse analysis. Foreign Language Research, (05), 82-86.
