MULTIMODAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IN TEXTBOOKS: A SCOPING REVIEW AND SEMI-BIBLIOMETRIC SYNTHESIS (1995-2025)
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article presents a scoping and semi-bibliometric review of 131 peer-reviewed studies on multimodal discourse analysis (MDA) in textbooks published between 1995 and 2025. The review identifies major research trends, theoretical orientations, methodological approaches, and research gaps by combining quantitative mapping and qualitative thematic coding. The findings reveal a significant expansion in research output since the early 2010s, with over 40% of the studies published between 2020 and 2024. Asia emerges as the dominant region, led by Indonesia and China, yet geographic imbalances persist, with limited contributions from Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. The review also shows a pronounced disciplinary concentration on English language teaching, accounting for nearly 60% of the corpus, while STEM and arts-related subjects remain underrepresented. Most of the studies adopt qualitative designs, relying heavily on content analysis and visual grammar frameworks, with 88.5% treating textbooks as isolated artefacts. Only 8.4% of the studies engage with textbook users such as teachers or students, signalling a lack of pedagogical contextualisation. Based on these findings, the article highlights five critical axes of discussion: regional asymmetry, disciplinary imbalance, methodological rigidity, theoretical convergence, and user exclusion. By synthesizing these insights, this review provides a comprehensive map of the field and directs future research toward more participatory, interdisciplinary, and digitally responsive studies that account for multimodality in situated educational practice.
Keywords
multimodality, textbook discourse, scoping review, bibliometric analysis, visual semiotics
Article Details
References
Bateman, J. A. (2014). Using multimodal corpora for empirical research. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 238–252). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Multimodal-Analysis/Jewitt/p/book/9781138245198
Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088307313177
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5hjn6c
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Deakin University Press. https://archive.org/details/languagecontextt0000hall/page/n1/mode/2up
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold. https://archive.org/details/introductiontofu0000hall
Jewitt, C. (Ed.). (2014). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Multimodal-Analysis/Jewitt/p/book/9781138245198
Jewitt, C., & Bezemer, J. (2015). Multimodality, learning and communication: A social semiotic frame. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Multimodality-Learning-and-Communication-A-social-semiotic-frame/Bezemer-Kress/p/book/9780415709620
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Multimodality-A-Social-Semiotic-Approach-to-Contemporary-Communication/Kress/p/book/9780415320610
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2021). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003099857
Lemke, J. L. (2002). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson, A. Saenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215–234). Legas Publishing. https://www.academia.edu/3033680/Mathematics_in_the_middle_Measure_picture_gesture_sign_and_word
Lv, Y., Ni, W., & Tan, Y. (2024). An overview of research on multimodal teaching and learning. Journal of Education and Educational Research, 8(3), 492–495. https://doi.org/10.54097/qp4jg551
Machin, D. (2013). What is multimodal critical discourse studies? Critical Discourse Studies, 10(4), 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2013.813770
Martinec, R., & Salway, A. (2005). A system for image–text relations in new (and old) media. Visual Communication, 4(3), 337–371. https://csis.pace.edu/~marchese/TextImage/image-text-allmedia..pdf
Neri, N. C., & Retelsdorf, J. (2022). The role of linguistic features in science and math comprehension and performance: A systematic review and desiderata for future research. Educational Research Review, 36, 100460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100460
O’Halloran, K. L. (2004). Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic-functional perspectives. Continuum. https://www.amazon.com/Multimodal-Discourse-Analysis-Perspectives-Linguistics/dp/0826472567
O’Halloran, K. L. (2008). Systemic functional-multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery. Visual Communication, 7(4), 443–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357208096210
O’Toole, M. (1994). The language of displayed art. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. https://www.routledge.com/The-Language-of-Displayed-Art/OToole/p/book/9780415595278
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Ramos-Rodríguez, A.-R., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 981–1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.397
Royce, T. D. (2007). Intersemiotic complementarity: A framework for multimodal discourse analysis. In T. D. Royce & W. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 63–109). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203357774
Tang, K. S., Park, J., & Chang, J. (2022). Multimodal genre of science classroom discourse: Mutual contextualisation between genre and representation construction. Research in Science Education, 52, 755–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09999-1
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
Tikly, L. (2019). Education for sustainable development in the postcolonial world: Towards a transformative agenda for Africa (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315211343
Torres, G. (2015). ‘Reading’ World Link: A visual social semiotic analysis of an EFL textbook. International Journal of English Language Education, 3(1), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v3i1.7200
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., ... Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Unsworth, L. (2006). Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 55–76. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ843820
Vojíř, K., & Rusek, M. (2019). Science education textbook research trends: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science Education, 41(11), 1496–1516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1613584
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2014). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organisation. Organisational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629