THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
DUONG HONG YEN
A MULTIMODAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF FAST FOOD
ADVERTISEMENTS IN ENGLISH
(Phân tích diễn ngôn đa phương thức
những quảng cáo đồ ăn nhanh bằng tiếng Anh)
M.A THESIS
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8220201
THAI NGUYEN - 2019
THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
DUONG HONG YEN
A MULTIMODAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF FAST FOOD
ADVERTISEMENTS IN ENGLISH
(Phân tích diễn ngôn đa phương thức
những quảng cáo đồ ăn nhanh bằng tiếng Anh)
M.A THESIS
(APPLICATION ORIENTATION)
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8220201
Supervisor 1: Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van
Supervisor 2: Dr. Nguyen Trong Du
THAI NGUYEN - 2019
DECLARATION
I hereby warrant and declare that the thesis entitled “A multimodal
discourse analysis of fast food advertisements in English” is the outcome of my
own work except elsewhere states otherwise by the references or acknowledgment.
It has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, for the award of any other
academic degree or diploma.
SUPERVISORS’ SIGNATURE
STUDENT’S SIGNATURE
Supervisor 1
Duong Hong Yen
Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van
Supervisor 2
Dr. Nguyen Trong Du
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish, first of all, to show my sincere gratitude to my supervisors, Prof. Dr.
Hoang Van Van and Dr. Nguyen Trong Du for their wholehearted assistance.
Without their invaluable comments, advice, and corrections, this thesis would not
have been possible.
My special thanks also go to all of my lecturers at the Department of Postgraduate Studies, School of Foreign Languages, Thai Nguyen University for their
precious lectures and suggestions that have inspired me and helped me very much in
the completion of my study.
Furthermore, I am grateful to all authors of books listed in the bibliography,
whose ideas are good references for my research to be conducted and developed.
Last but not least, I am indebted to my family and my friends who
encouraged and supported me a lot.
ii
ABSTRACT
Online advertisement is one of the various kinds of media advertisement
which unavoidably surrounds people‟s life these days. Over the recent decades,
many people of all ages have been into fast food products because of their
undeniable advantages. There are also, however, some health problems that can be
caused by fast food but a majority of people cannot stop themselves purchasing and
eating this type of food. A lot of individuals buy certain products might be due to
effective marketing strategies of the company. This study aims at figuring out which
verbal and non-verbal elements have been used in fast food advertisements in
English and their persuasive effects on the consumption of the audience by having
been placed within the multimodal discourse analysis perspective of Norris (2004).
Explicitly, three video advertisements of the three most well-known fast food chains
in the world (Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonald‟s, and Burger King) were
analyzed. The findings of the study reveal that apart from language, there are many
other communicative modes influencing people to consume fast food products like
proxemics, posture, gesture, gaze, head movement, music, print, and layout. Among
those, each mode weighs differently in advertisements and has certain effects in
persuading advertisement viewers.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .................................................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 1
1.1. Rationale ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Aims of the study ............................................................................................................ 2
1.3. Research questions .......................................................................................................... 2
1.4. Significance of the study................................................................................................. 2
1.5. Scope of the study ........................................................................................................... 2
1.6. Design of the study ......................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 4
2.1. Theoretical background .................................................................................................. 4
2.1.1. Discourse and discourse analysis ................................................................................. 4
2.1.2. Multimodal interactional analysis ................................................................................ 5
2.1.3. Advertising................................................................................................................. 12
2.1.4. Fast food .................................................................................................................... 14
2.2. Review of related studies .............................................................................................. 15
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 18
3.1. Context of the study ...................................................................................................... 18
3.2. Research approach ........................................................................................................ 19
3.3. Research methods ......................................................................................................... 19
3.4. Data collection procedure ............................................................................................. 20
3.4.1. Collecting and logging data ....................................................................................... 20
3.4.2. Viewing data .............................................................................................................. 20
3.4.3. Transcribing ............................................................................................................... 20
3.4.4. Analyzing data ........................................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................. 23
4.1. KFC advertisement ....................................................................................................... 23
iv
4.1.1. Spoken language ........................................................................................................ 23
4.1.2. Proxemics................................................................................................................... 24
4.1.3. Posture ....................................................................................................................... 25
4.1.4. Gesture ....................................................................................................................... 26
4.1.5. Head movement ......................................................................................................... 27
4.1.6. Gaze ........................................................................................................................... 27
4.1.7. Music ......................................................................................................................... 28
4.1.8. Print and layout .......................................................................................................... 28
4.1.9. The combination of various communicative modes .................................................. 29
4.2. McDonald‟s advertisement ........................................................................................... 32
4.2.1. Spoken language ........................................................................................................ 32
4.2.2. Proxemics................................................................................................................... 33
4.2.3. Posture ....................................................................................................................... 34
4.2.4. Gesture, head movement and gaze ............................................................................ 34
4.2.5. Music ......................................................................................................................... 36
4.2.6. Print ............................................................................................................................ 36
4.2.7. Layout ........................................................................................................................ 36
4.2.8. The combination of various communicative modes .................................................. 38
4.3. Burger King advertisement ........................................................................................... 40
4.3.1. Spoken language ........................................................................................................ 40
4.3.2. Proxemics................................................................................................................... 41
4.3.3. Posture, gesture, gaze, and head movement .............................................................. 42
4.3.4. Music ......................................................................................................................... 43
4.3.5. Print ............................................................................................................................ 43
4.3.6. Layout ........................................................................................................................ 43
4.3.7. The combination of various communicative modes .................................................. 45
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 48
5.1. Summary of the findings............................................................................................... 48
5.2. Implications .................................................................................................................. 49
5.3. Limitations of the study ................................................................................................ 49
5.4. Suggestions for further research ................................................................................... 50
REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 51
v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
KFC: Kentucky Fried Chicken
BK: Burger King
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Proxemics in KFC advertisement ............................................................. 25
Figure 2. Posture in KFC advertisement ................................................................... 25
Figure 3. Gesture in KFC advertisement .................................................................. 26
Figure 4. Head movement in KFC advertisement..................................................... 27
Figure 5. Gaze in KFC advertisement ....................................................................... 28
Figure 6. Print and layout in KFC advertisement ..................................................... 29
Figure 7. Full multimodal transcript of KFC advertisement..................................... 31
Figure 8. Proxemics in McDonald‟s advertisement .................................................. 33
Figure 9. Gesture, head movement, and gaze in McDonald‟s advertisement........... 35
Figure 10. Print in McDonald‟s advertisement ......................................................... 36
Figure 11. Layout in McDonald‟s advertisement ..................................................... 37
Figure 12. Full multimodal transcript of McDonald‟s advertisement ...................... 39
Figure 13. Proxemics in BK advertisement .............................................................. 42
Figure 14. Posture, gesture, gaze, and head movement in BK advertisement .......... 42
Figure 15. Print in BK advertisement ....................................................................... 43
Figure 16. Layout in BK advertisement .................................................................... 44
Figure 17. Full multimodal transcript of BK advertisement ..................................... 46
vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
There is little doubt that advertising plays a crucial role in all kinds of
business. Individuals can easily find advertisements anywhere. Over the last few
decades, advertising has become extremely popular with a wide diversity in its forms.
These days, advertising and promotion have exceeded their popularity beyond
traditional media dominating last century like newspaper, magazines, radio or
television. In accordance with the rapid development of information technology,
online advertisements seem to be more preferred due to its merits such as time
saving, convenient. Advertisement is a powerful tool of communication to persuade
people to buy the product advertised (Dyer, 1996) because it plays an important role
in expressing and sending message of the product. Advertisement, in a simple word,
means drawing attention to something or notifying something to somebody (Dyer,
1996). As a result, manufacturers take advertisements into consideration as a key
tool to bring their products to reach the customers and spread them worldwide.
Most fast food companies are generally very successful although the quality
of their food is questioned every day in many research works and documentaries. It
seems that they are willing to spend a lot of their budgets on advertising. In order to
make their fast food products appeal to the viewers, the corporations should find the
best ways to advertise. Interestingly, other semiotic resources besides language
begin to be used more frequently and widely. There might have been some research
on fast food advertisements all over the world; however, virtually no attention has
been paid to multimodal analysis of fast food advertisements. Hence, a multimodal
discourse analysis study of videos of fast food advertisements will probably bring
about a comprehensive look at discourse analysis of fast food products. This study
will attempt to look at fast food advertisements in terms of linguistic and nonlinguistic elements so as to see why they are so persuasive to the citizens. It may not
only enrich the application study of multimodal discourse analysis but also fill in a
gap in discourse analysis of fast food.
1
1.2. Aims of the study
Firstly, the study aimed at analyzing discourse features of fast food
advertisements in the perspective of multiple modes of communication including
both linguistic and non-linguistic symbol resources to achieve the best persuasion
effects. Secondly, this study attempted to see how different modes of
communication are combined together in the advertisements to achieve the purposes
of the fast food corporations.
1.3. Research questions
The study sought answers for the following questions:
1) What are some linguistic and non-linguistic features used in fast food
advertisements in English?
2) What effects can these features bring to the advert viewers to persuade
them to buy the products?
1.4. Significance of the study
Due to the popularity of fast food advertisements, the research is expected
to provide some interesting analysis to figure out the reasons behind fast food
success. In addition, this paper will hopefully provide those who teach and study
English language with some insights into mastering this kind of language. It is
important for them to recognize that in order to fully understand a language in
interactions, other communicative modes rather than linguistic component
should also be taken into account.
Finally, this research will definitely
contribute to enriching the literature of multimodal discourse analysis in the
world in general and in Vietnam in particular.
1.5. Scope of the study
The study focuses on some videos of fast food advertisements in English
which could be found on www.youtube.com. The data of the study include three
advertisements in English of three world-wide famous fast food corporations
2
namely KFC, McDonald‟s, and BK. Each video lasts from 15 to 30 seconds.
Analyzing video data in the perspective of multimodal analysis is a complicated
process. That is the reason why only some short and outstanding advertisements
were used for the study. For each fast food brand, the video with a big number of
viewers found on YouTube was chosen as the data for analysis.
1.6. Design of the study
The study is divided into in five chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter presents the rationale, aims, significance and scope of the study
are presented.
Chapter 2: Literature review
This chapter provides the theoretical background, specifically the terms
related to discourse, discourse analysis, advertisement, fast food are included. Also,
some previous studies that most relate to the theme of the research are reviewed.
Chapter 3: Methodology
This chapter presents research approach and research methodology. The
information about data analysis, and data collection procedure, including type of
data and data analytical framework are also shown.
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion
In this chapter, the findings of the research are highlighted and followed by
significant discussions.
Chapter 5: Conclusion
This chapter summarizes the significant findings of the research. After that,
the limitations of the research, some implications and the suggestions for further
research are included.
3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter includes background knowledge of discourse and discourse
analysis, multimodal interactional analysis, advertising, fast food and reviews some
previous research related to the topic of the study.
2.1. Theoretical background
2.1.1. Discourse and discourse analysis
There is the fact that discourse has been defined differently by different
linguists. In this study, the term discourse is generally understood as human
language in use for communication. According to Brown & Yule (1983):
The analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use. As
such, it cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent of the
purposes or functions which these forms are designed to serve in human affairs (p.1)
However, it can be argued that discourse is not only the use of
language but there are also other things involved. Macdonnell (1986) defined:
“whatever signifies or has meaning can be considered part of discourse.” (p.4).
Discourse is not only about language itself but there are some other related aspects
as well. It is also concerned with who used it and why and in which situation – all
are included in discourse. With the text, the context is of the same importance. Cook
(1992) claimed that:
Although the main focus of discourse analysis is on language, it is not
concerned with language alone. It also examines the context of communication:
who is communicating with whom and why; in what kind of society and situation;
through what medium; how different types and acts of communication evolved, and
their relationship to each other. (p.3)
Cook also added if other modes of communication rather than language are
used in the discourse such as music or pictures, they cannot be omitted when
analyzing. Otherwise, the acts of communication or the internal mechanism hardly
4
can be understood correctly (p.4). Jones (2012) believed that discourse analysis
cannot be considered the study of language as other studies mentioned, it is the real
life use of language by people in order to express different feelings such as to make
fun, to argue, to persuade and in various other purposes.
Discourse can be classified in many different ways, one of which is the
classification
of
discourse
into
spoken
and
written forms,
which
are
distinguished from each other by the means of paralinguistic and extra linguistic
factors as well as distinctive linguistic features. Nevertheless, the differences
between them are not very clear, and the characteristics that we tend to associate with
written language can sometimes occur in spoken language and vice versa.
Hence, analyzing discourse as a linguistics form together with other modes
of communication involved helps better the understanding of the language in use.
That is the reason why it consists of the situation, not only the interlocutors in
the communication but also their fashion, gestures, their way of talking.
Without taking these on account one cannot fully understand what is expressed in
the conversation.
2.1.2. Multimodal interactional analysis
Multimodal
interactional
analysis,
which
grew
out
of
mediated
discourse analysis (Scollon, 1998, 2001), Sociolinguistics (Goffman, 1959, 1963,
1974; Gumperz, 1982; Tannen, 1984), and Kress and van Leeuwen‟s early thoughts
on multimodality (1998, 2001) has evolved into a firm methodology with a
multitude of heuristic tools and strong theoretical underpinnings. It systematically
examines multiple communication modes as cues to meaning rather than privileging
language as the primary mode (Norris, 2004).
Multimodal interactional discourse analysts see discourse as involving
multiple modes which often work together. For instance, in a face-to-face
conversation people do not just communicate with spoken language. They also
communicate though their gestures, gaze, facial expressions, posture, dress, how
5
close or far away they stand or sit from each other, and many other things.
Similarly, “written texts” rarely consist only of words, especially nowadays; they
often include pictures, charts or graphs. Even the font that is used and the way
paragraphs are arranged on a page or screen can convey meaning.
The point of multimodal interactional discourse analysis is not to analyze
these other modes instead of speech and writing, but to understand how different
modes, including speech and writing work together in discourse. The point is also
not to study some special kind of discourse - multimodal discourse - but rather to
understand how all discourse involves the interaction of multiple modes. Mode in
the context of multimodal discourse analysis is a system for making meaning. So
we can speak, for example, of the modes of speech, writing, gesture, color, dress,
etc. Any system of signs that are used in a consistent and systematic way to make
meaning can be considered a mode (Jones, 2012).
Modes can also be understood in terms of Halliday‟s (1978) classification of
meaning. He suggests that every sign simultaneously tells us something about “the
world” (ideational meaning), positions us in relation to someone or something
(interpersonal meaning) and produces a structured text (textual meaning).
Multimodality sets out to explore how these meanings are realized in all modes.
A number of studies have described modes, including Kress and van
Leeuwen‟s (1996) work on image, Martinec‟s (2000) research on movement and
gesture, and van Leeuwen‟s work on music (1999).
According to Norris, multimodal interactional analysis is a holistic
methodological framework that allows the analyst to integrate the verbal with the
nonverbal, and to integrate these with material objects and the environment as they
are being used by individuals acting and interacting in the world. In short,
multimodal interactional analysis allows a researcher to study real people
interacting with others, with technology, and with the environment.
6
Multimodal interactional analysis takes an interaction, grapples with its
verbal and nonverbal language, and seeks to understand how they are interwoven
and overlapping throughout the interaction. Multimodal interactional analysis, in
other words, focuses not only on language but also on reading distinct types of
nonverbal language, defined as “communicative modes” and determining how they
link together as smaller pieces or “lower-level actions” to create a larger
communication chain or “higher level action” (Norris, 2004, p. 11).
2.1.2.1. Communicative modes
According to Norris (2004), in addition to language, the communicative
modes include the following things:
Proxemics
Proxemics is the ways we arrange our space in relation to other objects
and/or people. Considering the role of proxemics, Norris supposed that proxemic
behavior is tightly integrated with the higher-level actions that are being performed,
and at the same time, proxemic behavior indicates social relationships (p.20)
When transcribing proxemics in interaction, she suggested that in the case
where there is no change in the participants‟ proxemics behavior during the
interaction that we are studying, one video capture of the participants may
be enough.
Posture
Norris defined, “Posture is the study of the ways in which individuals
position their bodies” (p.24). There are two important aspects to posture: first,
the form of the body position, and, second, the postural direction that an
individual takes up towards others. Dittman has described the open–closed
position of arms and legs as hands and arms apart and knees separated for
open, and arms crossed or folded and legs crossed for closed (Dittman,
1987: 55)
7
Regarding position of feet, Norris assumed that when a person is standing
during an interaction, the position of the feet may give insight into the main focus of
the participant. Similarly, when the participant is sitting, the location of the feet
may give insight into the person‟s directional positioning” (p.25)
Gesture
A gesture is a “deliberately expressive movement that has a sharp
boundary of onset and that is seen as an excursion, rather than as a result in
any sustained change of position” (Kendon, 1978: 69). According to Norris (2004),
gestures can be fallen into four types: iconic gestures, metaphoric gestures, deictic
gestures, and beat gestures. Iconic gestures possess a pictorial content and mimic
what people communicate verbally; metaphoric gestures depict a pictorial content
by showing an abstract idea or category through a shape or form; deictic gestures
include pointing to objects or people or to abstracts as if they had location; and beat
gestures look like a beat to musical time with up/down or back/forth movements of
fingers, hands or arms;
It can be said that gesture and language are closely linked to each other;
therefore, when analyzing multimodal interaction, analysts may need to refer to
one mode to be able to understand the other mode. Of the four sub-types of
gestures, only deictic gestures which involving pointing to objects or people in the
real world can actually be understood without language whereas others highly
depend on the language.
Head movement
“Head movement is the study of the ways that individuals position their
heads. Altorfer et al. (2000) have conducted extensive studies on head movement
in conversation, and they distinguish between rotational (shaking the head), lateral
(tilting the head to the right or the left), and sagittal (nodding) movements.”
(Norris, 2004, p.33). However, multimodal interactional analysts use qualitative
measurements and study the interactional meaning of head movement in interaction.
8
Gaze
As Norris defined, “Gaze is the organization, direction, and intensity of
looking”. For the role of gaze in interaction, she added “Gaze may play a
subordinate role in interaction when people are conversing and are not engaged in
other activities. Gaze may play a superordinate role when people are simultaneously
engaged in other activities while conversing.” (Norris, 2004, pp. 36-37)
Music
Mode of music refers to the music that appears in the interaction. In
multimodal interaction, music can be considered an embodied mode when
individuals use instruments (including their voices when singing) to express their
perceptions, thoughts, or feelings or disembodied mode when people react to the
music played by others (recorded or not) (Norris, 2004, p.41).
Print
The communicative mode of print refers to written texts, including the
language, the medium, the typography, and the content when it is incorporated into
the interactions. The mode of print also includes images in the printed media
(Norris, 2004, p.44). This mode may be employed by reading a magazine,
writing a shopping list, or wearing clothes with writing and/or images printed on
them. In multimodal interactional analysis, the focus is on the way that
people in interaction use the mode of written text or images. (Norris, 2004,
pp.44-45)
Layout
The communicative mode of layout refers to the setting and the
objects found within it. In multimodal interactional analysis, the focus is on how the
participants utilize the layout and communicate through this mode. While this mode
appears to be extensive, participants in interaction usually employ only a small
amount of a vast layout (Norris, 2004, p.49).
9
2.1.2.2. Embodied vs disembodied modes
According to Norris (2004), it is obvious that language is of great importance
in communicating but it is not the only means of communication. Apart from
language, other communicative modes such as gaze, gesture, posture could play
equal role or even superordinate role in a lot of interactions and those are call
embodied modes. In contrast, disembodied modes are the ones of the setting or
material world that people use in the interactions as music, print, and layout. It is
note-worthy that these can become embodied modes when they take superordinate
role in the interactions. Take music as an example, it is a disembodied mode when
people react or listen to the music played by others or recorded music whereas it
may become embodied mode when individuals utilize music to express their
perceptions, thoughts, and feelings.
2.1.2.3. Lower-level actions, higher level actions, and frozen actions
As Norris defined (2004), a lower-level action is the smallest interactional
meaning unit whereas a higher-level action bracketed by an opening and a closing
of the meeting and is made up of a multiplicity of chained lower-level actions. For
instance, the words “good morning” is uttered in a meeting conversation between
some friends. “Good morning” is considered a lower-level action while the meeting
is called a higher-level action because it is a conversation made up of chains of
utterances, gestures, postural shifts, etc. Frozen actions are the ones which were
performed by someone at an earlier time than the real time of the interactions being
analyzed. These actions are frozen in the material objects and the environment. For
example, when we see a picture hanging on the wall, we know that somebody has
bought or painted the picture and hung it on the wall.
2.1.2.4. Modal density, modal intensity and modal complexity
According to Norris (2004), modal density refers to the modal intensity
and/or the modal complexity through which a higher-level action is shaped.
10
The intensity, weight, or importance of specific modes in interaction is
decided by the situation, the social actors, and other related social and
environmental factors. Hence, the weight of any specific mode varies from one
interaction to the next or even within an interaction. Modal complexity refers to the
interplay of multiple communicative modes utilized in the interaction.
2.1.2.5. Attention vs awareness
A person may simultaneously engage in a few higher-level actions on
different levels of attention and awareness. Think of a boy learning to play the
guitar. He has to pay close attention and is also highly aware of the action itself.
Norris (2004) called this one level of attention/awareness. However, imagine a
woman holding a sleeping baby on her arms while talking with her client on the
phone. She pays close attention to the conversation that they discuss and it seems
that she pays no attention to the baby but actually it is necessary for her to be aware
of the sleeping child even a little. In this situation, she simultaneously engages in
two higher-level actions on different levels of attention/awareness. Also, there are
there levels of attention/awareness when an actor engages in three different higherlevel actions at the same time.
2.1.2.6. Foreground-background continuum
Foreground-background continuum represents the various degrees of
attention that an individual is simultaneously engaged in interaction. Norris stated:
“the higher-level action that a participant highly attends to and/or highly reacts to,
and/or highly acts upon, is in the foreground of their attention/awareness” (p.97).
Next, the higher level action gets a medium level of attention/awareness is called
mid-ground. Accordingly, the notion of background refers to the higher level action
that an individual does not pay attention to or be aware of. Nonetheless, the three
stages are not always fixed in interaction.
11
- Xem thêm -
.PDF 
62 
262 
54 
