Intersemiotic Relations between Verbal and Visual Elements in Engineering Students’ Final Project Reports: A Lesson of Academic Writing Courses

Authors

  • Mohammad Febryanto ID Politeknik Negeri Bandung
  • Zewitra Zewitra ID Politeknik Negeri Bandung
  • Mulyati Khorina ID Politeknik Negeri Bandung
  • Krisna Yudha Bakhti ID Politeknik Negeri Bandung

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36312/jolls.v6i2.2196

Keywords:

Intersemiotic, Multimodality, Engineering academic writing, Verbal-visual relations, Multimodal literacy

Abstract

The integration of verbal and visual resources is critical for explaining technical information in engineering academic writing. While earlier research has looked extensively into intersemiotic relationships in textbooks, classroom materials, and scientific texts, limited attention has been paid on engineering students' final project reports. This study investigates the intersemiotic relationships between verbal and visual elements in final project reports written by engineering students. The study used a qualitative content analysis design and examined 20 final project reports from four engineering programs: Road and Bridge Design Engineering, Mechanical Design and Construction Engineering, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineering, and Power Plant Engineering. Halliday's logico-semantic linkages and Martinec and Salway's intersemiotic framework served as foundations for the investigation. The results revealed two intersemiotic categories: elaboration (90.08%) and enhancement (9.92%), with no instances of extension observed. Clarification was the most frequent subtype of elaboration (74.09%), followed by exposition (9.18%) and exemplification (6.82%). Within enhancement, manner accounted for 81.25% of the occurrences, while spatial relations accounted for 18.75%. The high level of clarification suggests that engineering students rely largely on visual resources to clarify and reinforce technical concepts, procedures, and systems that are difficult to describe verbally. These findings indicate that engineering academic writing is essentially multimodal, with visual resources serving as primary meaning-making tools rather than supplemental illustrations. The study contributes to intersemiotic research by expanding its application to authentic engineering academic writing.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Mohammad Febryanto, Politeknik Negeri Bandung

    English Department, Politeknik Negeri Bandung. Jl. Gegerkalong Hilir, Ciwaruga, Kec. Parongpong, Kabupaten Bandung Barat, West Java, Indonesia

  • Zewitra Zewitra, Politeknik Negeri Bandung

    English Department, Politeknik Negeri Bandung. Jl. Gegerkalong Hilir, Ciwaruga, Kec. Parongpong, Kabupaten Bandung Barat, West Java, Indonesia

  • Mulyati Khorina, Politeknik Negeri Bandung

    English Department, Politeknik Negeri Bandung. Jl. Gegerkalong Hilir, Ciwaruga, Kec. Parongpong, Kabupaten Bandung Barat, West Java, Indonesia

  • Krisna Yudha Bakhti, Politeknik Negeri Bandung

    English Department, Politeknik Negeri Bandung. Jl. Gegerkalong Hilir, Ciwaruga, Kec. Parongpong, Kabupaten Bandung Barat, West Java, Indonesia

References

Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2017). Social Semiotics in University Physics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5

Alyousef, H. S. (2021). Text cohesion in English scientific texts written by Saudi undergraduate dentistry students: A multimodal discourse analysis of textual and logical relations in oral biology texts. SAGE Open, 11(3), 21582440211032190.

Aridasarie, Z., & Rohmah, Z. (2024). Enhancing multimodal literacy : puppetry for English-speaking skills development. Cogent Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2370754

Ayik, Z., & Costu, B. (2021). A Study on Effects of Multimodal Science Text Design on Meaning-Making of Science Content: Science Teachers’ Perspectives. Mimbar Sekolah Dasar, 8(1), 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.53400/mimbar-sd.v8i1.31331

Bateman, J., Wildfeuer, J., & Hiippala, T. (2018). Multimodality. Foundations, research and analysis. A problem-oriented introduction. In Romanistisches Jahrbuch (Vol. 69, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1515/roja-2018-0009

Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2020). Semiotic work in the science classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15, 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09957-4

Carrió-pastor, M. L. (2021). Multimodal metadiscourse in digital academic journals on linguistics , engineering and medicine linguistics, engineering and medicine. European Journal of English Studies, 25(3), 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825577.2021.1988254

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Danielsson, K., & Selander, S. (2021). Multimodal texts in disciplinary education: A comprehensive framework. Springer.

Fernández-Fontecha, A., O’Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., & Wignell, P. (2019). A multimodal approach to visual thinking: the scientific sketchnote. Visual Communication, 18(1), 5-29. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1470357218759808

Florek, C. S., & Hendges, G. R. (2023). A multimodal move analysis of graphical abstracts in medicine and chemistry. ESP Today, 11(2), 237–260. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2023.11.2.3

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (8th ed.). Mc Graw Hill.

Halliday, M. A. K., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.

Huang, Q., & Xia, S. (2024). Preparing learners for digitally mediated academic communication: Digital multimodal practice in students’ knowledge dissemination videos. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 71, 101429.

Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2025). Introducing multimodality. Routledge.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2020). Reading Images. In Reading Images. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003099857

Lim, F. V. (2004). Developing an integrative multi-semiotic model. In K. L. O'Halloran (Ed.), Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic-functional perspectives (pp. 220–246). Continuum.

Lim, F. V. (2021). Investigating intersemiosis: a systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis of the relationship between language and gesture in classroom discourse. Visual Communication, 20(1), 34–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357218820695

Lubis, M., & Surip, M. (2024). Intersemiotic complementary: The multimodal discourse analysis on tempo magazine covers. Kembara: Jurnal Keilmuan Bahasa, Sastra, Dan Pengajarannya, 10(2), 665–684. https://doi.org/10.22219/kembara.v10i2.36895

Nguyen, T. T. L. (2024). Intersemiotic Theories: Towards a Framework for the Analysis of the Interplay of Language and Visual Images in Movie Posters. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 40(4), 113-127. https://doi.org/10.63023/2525-2445/jfs.ulis.5240.

Nur'graha, D. Z. M. N., & Hermawan, B. (2020). What do the pictures say in a science textbook? Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (ICOLLITE 2020), 257-263. https://doi.org/ 10.2991/assehr.k.201215.025

Martinec, R., & Salway, A. (2005). A system for image–text relations in new (and old) media. Visual Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357205055928

Rahmanu, I. W. E. D., & Molnár, G. (2024). Multimodal immersion in English language learning in higher education: A systematic review. Heliyon, 10(19). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38357

Roehrich, L. (2016). Intersemiosis in science textbooks. In Multimodality in higher education (pp. 195–215). Brill.

Royce, T. D. (2013). Intersemiotic complementarity: A framework for multimodal discourse analysis. In New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 63–109). Routledge.

Sugianto, A. (2021). ‘Can We See It?’: Contextualizing ‘Deforestation’ from an English-Medium Science Textbook for a Primary School Level. J-Lalite: Journal of English Studies, 2(2), 86. https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jes.2021.2.2.5072

Tang, K., & Park, J. (2022). Multimodal Genre of Science Classroom Discourse : Mutual Contextualization Between Genre and Representation Construction. 755–772.

Unsworth, L., Tytler, R., Fenwick, L., Humphrey, S., Chandler, P., Herrington, M., & Pham, L. (2022). Multimodal Literacy in School Science. In Multimodal Literacy in School Science. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003150718

Wanselin, H., Danielsson, K., & Wikman, S. (2022). Analysing Multimodal Texts in Science—a Social Semiotic Perspective. Research in Science Education, 52(3), 891–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10027-5

Zapletalová, G. (2015). Multimodality in academic language: Aspects of the lexicogrammar of presentation slides. Discourse and Interaction, 7(2), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2014-2-61

Downloads

Published

2026-06-23

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Febryanto, M., Zewitra, Z., Khorina, M., & Bakhti, K. Y. (2026). Intersemiotic Relations between Verbal and Visual Elements in Engineering Students’ Final Project Reports: A Lesson of Academic Writing Courses. Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 6(2), 817-828. https://doi.org/10.36312/jolls.v6i2.2196