ABSTRACT
Teacher: Well, I like to see what you’re going to write. Julia: Why can’t you just ask us? (adapted from Dyson, 1989,
p. 12) Out of the mouths of 5-and 6-year-olds, we hear a challenge to the wellestablished definition of texts as writing/print. The children’s words of protest are brief, to the point, and important, albeit ignored by most teachers. Written texts occupy a central place in human culture, especially in Western society. We turn to them for information, knowledge, amusement, fantasy, inspiration, and confirmation. If it is written, it must be true! Many scholars, teachers, critics, and healers earn their living by making sense of what others write. In our endless fascination with writing, however, the rootedness of texts in visual imagery is neglected. The brief but typical exchange between a teacher and her young students questions the notion of ‘text’, calling for an extension of the term to include drawing. Work in cultural studies and media literacy has indeed begun to broaden the definition of text to include spoken language, behaviour, films, cultural artefacts (Solomon, 1988), and even universities (Schick, 1994) and shopping malls (Kowinski, 1985). That being the case, the children’s plea for the inclusion of drawings-as-text seems a reasonable request.
