Linguistics and the Image

I have heard arguments before that suggest a linguistic interpretation or analysis cannot be applied to non text or aural based communication (such as images) because they are not language in the way linguistics considers language. In communication design we often talk of “visual language” as a way of qualifying visual communication as a form of language. I am inclined to think that this a way of saying that visual communication “is language” rather than “another kind of language”, and at the very least that is my own impression.

It seems to me that the rules or theories of linguistics could be applied equally to any language, whether it be the French language, the Japanese language, or Visual language.

Heres a syllogism for you:

 Sign language is a recognised language that doesn’t use text or spoken words.

An image doesn’t use text or spoken words,

Therefore an image should be recognized as language.

Okay, that is maybe a bit of a reach (is it also an example of a Gricean non-natural meaning?). But an image communicates meaning  and that should be the deciding factor on whether something is a language or not. One image can tell a story, it will often have meaning attached to it, and it can be interpreted in different ways depending on the viewer reader.

Clearly not all linguistic analyses can be applied to, for example, a photographic image. For instance, the t/v pronoun address of pragmatics would be a tough one to apply to an image. One could equate the hand on the shoulder as a familiar form of address (or the fists of many in the air as familiar solidarity) but whats the point in that, especially when there are other ways of analyzing those physical interactions.

Accepting the exceptions, I  believe using a linguistics model for analyzing visual communication is a very effective tool to help better understand the complexities of messages, meanings and interpretations.