10.13125/2039-6597/4277
application/pdf
2039-6597
4277
20
en
urn:nbn:it:unica-26949
Federico Zecca
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
Between
media convergence
Understanding Media Relations in the Age of Convergence: A Metatheoretical Taxonomy
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/between
10
Essay
2020-11-30
2020-09-09
2020-11-30
2020-12-07
170-190
1
Federico Zecca
2020/11/30
10.13125/2039-6597/4277
170
University of Bari
2039-6597
20
media convergence
en
190
urn:nbn:it:unica-26949
Understanding Media Relations in the Age of Convergence: A Metatheoretical Taxonomy
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/between/article/download/4277/4541
10
       Understanding Media Relations
         in the Age of Convergence:
        A Metatheoretical Taxonomy

                               Federico Zecca


Abstract
     Multimediality, crossmediality, intermediality, transmediality.
Over the last three decades, media (as well as comparative) studies have
been characterized by the emergence of new categories, aimed at
describing and analysing the variety of relations established by different
media in the age of convergence. Despite their widespread diffusion in
many research fields, however, these categories still lack a shared and
stable meaning, having eluded any attempt of theoretical
systematization so far. As a consequence, they tend to overlap
semantically, making it impossible for scholars to share a common
vocabulary. The objective of this paper is to propose a meta-theoretical
rearrangement of the abovementioned categories, with the aim of
outlining a systematic taxonomy in which each term can find a
definition and a position.



Keywords
    Multimediality; Crossmediality; Intermediality; Transmediality;
Media Convergence.




Between, vol. X, n. 20 (November 2020)
ISSN 2039-6597
DOI: 10.13125/2039-6597/4277
Zecca, Understanding Media Relations in the Age of Convergence: A Metatheoretical Taxonomy




Understanding Media Relations in the
      Age of Convergence: A
    Metatheoretical Taxonomy
                                   Federico Zecca


                               Media after media
      In the chapter entitled Electronics Takes Command of his Technologies
of Freedom, originally published in 1983, Ithiel de Sola Pool carries out a
groundbreaking analysis of the «joint metamorphosis» (Brand 1987: 11)
media have faced since the second half of the 1970s, that is, after the
advent of the “electronic revolution” (de Sola Pool 1995: 24). «A [new]
era has been ushered in – the author writes – by an innovation of at least
as much historical significance as the mass production of print and other
media. Pulses of electromagnetic energy embody and convey messages
that up to now have been sent by sound, pictures, and text. All media
are becoming electronic» (24). Coining a term destined for great success
in the following decades, de Sola Pool identifies specifically
technological convergence as the main process of media transformation
in the electronic age: «A single physical means […] – he states – may
carry services that in the past were provided in separate ways.
Conversely, a service that was provided in the past by any medium […]
can now be provided in several different physical ways» (23). For de Sola
Pool, this process has momentous consequences. Technological
convergence elicits, in fact, the erosion of the original «one-to-one
relationship that used to exist between a medium and its use» (23),
«causing the blurring of the boundaries between media that “for the first




170
                                            Between, vol. X, n. 20 (November 2020)



three-quarters of the twentieth century […] were neatly partitioned from
each other, both by technology and by use» (27).
      The publication of Technologies of Freedom dates back to the dawn of
the present “information age” (Castells 1996) – when the penetration of
digital networks in the universe of communication was just at its
beginnings. Nevertheless, de Sola Pool’s observations about
convergence provide essential indications – almost prophetic, I would
say – in order to understand the evolution of the contemporary media
system (and of the relations established within it). In his perspective, in
fact, convergence is a dialectical and dynamic process, bringing about
media “unification” at the same time as their “differentiation” (53). As
noted by Henry Jenkins, de Sola Pool has (already) understood that
convergence is a phenomenon with “two sides” (Jenkins 2006: 10). On
the one hand, media devices are interconnected, sharing the same
technological infrastructure in an integrated manner; on the other, they
specialize, acquiring a specific function within the «universal
telecommunication system» (de Sola Pool 1995: 53). With a play on
words, I could say that if media before convergence were separated but
homogeneous (because, although not related, they showed unvarying
internal properties), media after convergence are united but
heterogeneous (because, although integrated, they embody different
qualities).
      In the 1980s and 1990s, however, de Sola Pool’s observations have
only partially been embraced (and understood) by media (and visual
arts) studies. Until the new millennium, in fact, the debate has been
dominated by two main perspectives that, although with different
approaches, explored the relationship between technological
convergence and the material and social dissolution of traditional
media. Some authors affirm that convergence has originated a full-
fledged “post-medium condition” (Krauss 1999), erasing «the very
concept of medium» (Kittler 1986: 2) within an undifferentiated global
media aggregate. Others state instead that convergence has inaugurated
a new “unimedia approach” (Lévy 2001: 47), determining the
(con)fusion of all communication languages in a single integrated digital
network.


                                                                              171
Zecca, Understanding Media Relations in the Age of Convergence: A Metatheoretical Taxonomy



     At the end of the 1990s, Roger Fiedler is one of the first scholars to
problematize both these perspectives: «common assumptions that the
present convergence will lead to fewer forms of communication, or
ultimately to the demise of established forms […] – he writes in his book
Mediamorphosis (1997) – are not supported by historic evidence» (26).
Echoing de Sola Pool’s argumentations, Fiedler underlines instead that,
on the phenomenal plane, convergence has taken a completely different
direction, that is, has moved towards the expansion and the
improvement of the media landscape: «rather than […] replacing older
forms – he writes –, newer forms have tended to diverge and add to the
media mix» (26-27).
     At the turn of the new millennium, Fiedler’s point of view is
developed by Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin in their Remediation
(1999). The two scholars as well observe, in fact, that convergence has
multiplied and diversified the communication technologies in use in our
culture (225), creating new tools and social practices. According to Bolter
and Grusin, though, convergence has simultaneously started a complex
process of “remediation” – that is, a process by which media mutually
appropriate other media forms, techniques and social meanings (65). In
other words, far from dissolve or implode, old and new media establish
strong dialectical relations in today’s media landscape, remaking and
reforming each other.
     In the years 2000s, Jenkins revives the debate on convergence by
opposing his well-known paradigm of “convergence culture” to what
he defines «the black box fallacy» (2006: 13). «Media convergence is an
ongoing process, occurring at various intersections of media
technologies, industries, content and audiences» – the author writes in
an article significatively titled Convergence? I Diverge (2001: 93). «There
will never be one black box controlling all media. Rather, thanks to the
proliferation of channels and the increasingly ubiquitous nature of
computing and communications, we are entering an era where media
will be everywhere, and we will use all kinds of media in relation to one
another» (93). Just like Fidler and Bolter and Grusin, also Jenkins
maintains therefore that convergence can reconfigure the media
landscape by expanding it and making it more connected, determining


172
                                              Between, vol. X, n. 20 (November 2020)



«a situation in which multiple media systems coexist and where media
content flows fluidly across them» (2006: 282).
      Jenkins’s argumentation can be summarized as follows. Directly
referencing de Sola Pool – and updating his ideas to the years 2000s –,
the scholar observes that the digital revolution has caused the total
deconstruction of the traditional techno-linguistic media structure. As
already claimed by the author of Technologies of Freedom, in fact, in the
new convergence era single media are not based anymore on a
biunivocal relationship between a specific technological device and a
specific linguistic system1 – while, until at least the 1980s, such
relationship strictly (inter)defined their semiotic and social status.
      According to Jenkins, however, this deconstruction has not caused
the disappearance of media, as claimed for instance by Pierre Lévy
(1997) or Peter Lunenfeld (1999) during the 1990s. On the contrary,
contemporary media have become more pervasive and socially
“ubiquitous”, thanks to a double mechanism of technological
transcendence (of their languages) and linguistic emancipation (of their
devices): languages are by now free to “flow” through multiple devices,
entering previously unreachable contexts (think about watching a movie
on your smartphone while traveling on a train); at the same time, devices
are by now capable to support different languages, multiplying
themselves according to the unification/differentiation logic already
highlighted by de Sola Pool. This means that today the media are
composed by wide socio-technological constellations, within (and
through) which contents circulate and intertwine. Jenkins’s work
therefore represents a turning point in the debate on the relationship
between media and digital technologies, reframing convergence as a
process of systemic change – and no longer generic dissolution – of the
«ways media circulates within our culture» (2006: 282).

     1
      Throughout this article, I employ the term “linguistic” to refer not only
to verbal language but also (and mainly) to media languages (such as the
language of cinema, of videogame, of comics, etc.) following a long-standing
theoretical tradition rooted in semiotics (see for example Metz 1974;
Groensteen 2007).


                                                                                173
Zecca, Understanding Media Relations in the Age of Convergence: A Metatheoretical Taxonomy



      In the wake of Jenkins’s observations, over the following years
many scholars have continued to investigate the media in the age of
convergence, finding that they are characterized by at least two equal
and opposite tensions: one tension towards relocation, examined by
Francesco Casetti (2015); and one towards hybridization, explored by
Lev Manovich (2013). In his book The Lumière Galaxy, Casetti observes
first of all that after the digital revolution a medium «no longer appears
to be a predetermined, closed and binding structure, but rather an open
and flexible set of elements; it is no longer an apparatus, but rather an
assemblage» (2015: 69). Precisely thanks to its openness and flexibility –
the author says – the medium-assemblage is physiologically inclined to
cross its traditional borders and to penetrate new spatial and media
contexts, while not losing its “social” identity. More specifically, Casetti
employs the category of “relocation” in order to describe the «physical
(so to speak) shift that brings one medium to occupy a new place – on a
new platform or in a new environment – and to contaminate this place
with its own presence» (2008a: 27, my translation). According to the
author, the most interesting element within this process is the medium’s
capability to reactivate and repurpose inside this new context «the
system of sensations» and «the cultural form» (2015: 27) that have
historically characterized it. «Thanks to a new medium – thanks to a new
support or a new device – an experience is reborn elsewhere, and the life
of the previous medium […] continues. It is in this way that we can think
of “being at the cinema” and “watching a film” even in bright light in
front of a digital screen» (2015: 28).
      Manovich’s proposal counterbalances Casetti’s. In his book
Software Takes Command (explicit reference to the de Sola Pool’s chapter
mentioned at the beginning of this article), the author first of all claims
that the digital revolution has freed the traditional media from their
material supports, transforming them into «cultural software» (2010: 20)
capable (so to speak) of “running” – in the double meaning of circulating
and being supported – on different hardware (urban screens, computers,
smartphones, etc.). According to Manovich, though, this softwarization
does not only determine media relocation, but also (and above all) their
hybridization: «After representational formats of older media types, the


174
                                            Between, vol. X, n. 20 (November 2020)



techniques for creating content in these media and the interfaces for
accessing them were unbundled from their physical bases and
translated into software – he writes –, these elements started interacting
to produce new hybrids» (171-176). More precisely, Manovich states that
this process has originated new «cultural or artistic metalanguages»
(276) in which «the unique properties and techniques of different
media» (176) are imported and recombined within another medium, as
it happens for instance in Sin City (Dir. Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller,
USA, 2005) or 300 (Dir. Zack Snyder, USA, 2007). That is, these
metalanguages develop the expressive possibilities of the contemporary
media, implementing «new stylized aesthetics» that arise from the
mixture of «multiple media techniques» (Manovich 2010: 259).

                      A terminological knot
      Having become assemblages or software, today the media tend to
expand and intertwine, establishing links of cooperation and
interchange on both the technological and the linguistic level. As already
observed by Jenkins, in fact, one of the main consequences of
convergence is the multiplication of relationships between different
media contents and the platforms through which these contents
circulate (Jenkins 2001: 93). Obviously, the media used to establish
mutual relations in the pre-digital age too (just think for instance of the
decades-long practice of film adaptation [Bluestone 1971]). In the new
era of convergence, however, these relations have become (so to speak)
intrinsic and consubstantial to the functioning itself of the media,
decisively contributing to their very existence and cultural persistence.
In other words, convergence seems to have taken one of the most famous
aphorisms by Marshall McLuhan – that is, «the content of any medium
is always another medium» (1994 [1964]: xii) – to its extremes.
      We should, however, try to figure out exactly what kinds of
relationships the media are establishing in the current context and how
we can distinguish them. Since the 1990s, scholars from different
disciplines have identified four main categories in order to tackle the
complexity of this new scenario: multimediality, intermediality,


                                                                              175
Zecca, Understanding Media Relations in the Age of Convergence: A Metatheoretical Taxonomy



crossmediality, and transmediality. As we will see in the next
paragraph, these categories are extremely useful in order to describe the
relationships between media in the age of convergence, but still lack a
shared and stable meaning in the field of media (as well as comparative)
studies, having eluded any attempt of (meta)theoretical systematization
so far. From a survey of the existing literature on the subject, in fact, it
appears quite clear that these categories tend to blur into one another
and overlap semantically, creating – as also Erica Negri states – a full-
fledged «terminological and conceptual knot» (Negri 2015: 182). Here
are some examples.
      In her 1991 chapter dedicated to the analysis of the economic and
cultural strategies informing Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman, Eileen R.
Meehan writes that media conglomerates «view every project as a
multimedia product line» (52, my emphasis) – a term that she frequently
uses in her piece. Taking Burton’s movie as an emblematic case study,
the author observes in fact that it has favored the interests of its
producers – that is, the media conglomerate Warner Communications
Inc. – in a wide variety of sectors, such as comics, books, music, cinema,
videoclips, TV networks, home video, and so on. The category of
multimediality is then employed by Thomas Schatz in his 1993 essay on
the New Hollywood. Directly referencing Meehan’s observations,
Schatz coins the term «multimedia reiteration» (34) in order to describe
the process of integrated exploitation of a movie in different secondary
and ancillary markets (cable TV, home video, videogames, press, music,
comics, clothing, toys, theme parks, etc.). As we see here, Meehan and
Schatz identify three different meanings of multimediality: the
production of merchandising related to a specific film; the distribution
of the film (and of its promotional paratexts) through multiple channels
and platforms; the transfer or remake of the film into new media
products.
      In the following years – after the impact of the digital revolution,
which has brought to the extreme some of the processes already in place
during the 1980s and 1990s, as we have seen in the previous paragraph
– scholars have subdivided multimediality, re-framing its different
typologies in new analytical categories. More specifically: 1) The


176
                                            Between, vol. X, n. 20 (November 2020)



production of merchandising has been at least in part included in the
category of transmediality – or rather in its “expanded” meaning, as it’s
been defined by some scholars inspired by the work of Henry Jenkins
(2006), such as Christy Dena (2009), for instance; in this sense,
merchandising is considered as a narrative or diegetic “extension” of the
original movie; 2) Multi-platform distribution has been included in the
category of crossmediality, as it’s been defined by Henry Jenkins (2016),
Gary Hayes (2006), Francesco Casetti (2006) or Max Giovagnoli (2013),
among others. As Hayes states, for instance, crossmediality «in its
simplest form [implies that] exactly the same content [is] delivered on
multiple platforms such as mobile, TV and broadband web». Similarly,
for Giovagnoli the term crossmediality describes narrative forms that
«remain the same as they adapt to different platforms» (pos. 126, my
translation); 3) The transfer or remake of a film (or of some of its parts)
into a different medium has been included in the category of
intermediality, as it’s been used by Jürgen E. Müller (2006), André
Gaudreault (2009), Silvestra Mariniello (2011), among others. According
to Gaudreault, for example, intermediality is «the process whereby form
and content are transferred and migrate among media, a process that
[…] has become today a norm to which every medium is likely to owe a
part of its configuration» (156).
      However, the boundary lines between these categories seem to be
anything but clear; on the contrary, they vary – mutually intersecting
and crossing over each other – depending on how they are used by the
different authors. Let’s go back, for instance, to the definition of
crossmediality proposed by Hayes. The author states that
crossmediality is articulated into four levels, characterized by increasing
breadth and complexity. The first and second level (which he defines
“Pushed” and “Extras”) actually refer to the distribution of the same
text, and of its paratexts, on several technological platforms. The third
and fourth level (defined “Bridges” and “Experiences”) refer instead to
the dissemination of a single narrative through different technological
platforms. Hayes writes that precisely these last two levels represent
«the truest form of cross-media where the story […] is specifically
authored to drive the audience […] across media devices», building


                                                                              177
Zecca, Understanding Media Relations in the Age of Convergence: A Metatheoretical Taxonomy



«narrative bridges» capable of encouraging the spectator to follow the
development of the narrative across different media forms.
      Interestingly though, this definition of crossmediality has many
points of contact with the definition of transmedia storytelling proposed
by Jenkins (yet not having any direct link whatsoever to it). Jenkins
(2007) defines in fact transmediality as «a process where integral
elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple
delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated
entertainment experience» – a definition that has been referred to and
further developed by many scholars, such as the already mentioned
Christy Dena, Lisbeth Klastrup and Susana Tosca (2004), Carlos Alberto
Scolari (2009) and Renira Rampazzo Gambarato (2013). In this sense,
Hayes includes in the definition of crossmediality even those processes
that Jenkins and others describe through the notion of trasmediality.
      Conversely, Giovagnoli’s definition of transmediality (2013) seems
to exceed the one proposed by Jenkins, making it appear
interchangeable with the category of intermediality. Giovagnoli
considers, in fact, all the «forms of narration that share the same
narrative and imaginative elements (plots, characters, atmospheres…),
but change depending on the platform through which they are
distributed» (pos. 134, my translation) as examples of transmediality.
More precisely, in his perspective, the category of transmediality
includes for instance both the many Harry Potter fanfictions that have
expanded and autonomously explored the narrative universe created by
the original novels and films and The Walking Dead, the TV adaptation
of the Image Comics comic book series of the same name, which has
expanded «with new characters and different locations the universal
synthetic structures of the comics» (pos. 505, my translation). Giovagnoli
therefore subsumes into the category of transmediality part of those
phenomena that other scholars include in the category of intermediality.
Besides, it is interesting to note that Giovagnoli adopts the term
trasmediality only starting from his 2011 book Transmedia Storytelling:
Imagery, Shapes and Techniques; in his previous works (2009; 2005), the
author employed instead the category of crossmediality to describe the



178
                                             Between, vol. X, n. 20 (November 2020)



very same phenomena he would then include in the category of
trasmediality – not differently from what happens with Hayes.
       Furthermore, we may add that the category of multimediality is
still quite common in the scientific discourse, where it is employed in at
least two ways. On the one hand, multimediality still represents a sort
of “umbrella term” used to generically describe the connections and
systemic relations established between different media, whatever their
typology (cfr. Valentini 2002; Casetti 2008b). On the other, it is instead
employed in order to describe the integration and material co-presence
of different media in the creation of specific works or texts (as it is the
case with artistic installations) (cfr. Klich, Scheer 2011; Monteverdi 2020).
I would just add in passing that for Jürgen E. Müller (2006) – but also for
other leading scholars on this topic such as Werner Wolf (1999), Irina O.
Rajewsky (2000; 2005) or Pietro Montani (2010) – the notion of co-
presence is an integral part of the semantic foundation of the category of
intermediality: this opens another possible interesting direction in the
investigation of the “slippages” from one term to another… which I
could certainly follow another time.

                   A metatheoretical taxonomy
     This quick overview – only the tip of the iceberg of a much more
complex situation – demonstrates that the categories of multimediality,
intermediality, crossmediality, and transmediality undeniably show a
certain degree of semantic instability within the critical and academic
discourse. As we have seen, in fact, these categories are not part of a
previous vocabulary, shared by the scientific community; on the
contrary, they are employed in a different (and partly contradictory)
way by each single scholar, depending on their research objects and
theoretical backgrounds. This means that the same process may be
described through different categories; or, that the same category may
be employed to designate different processes. In this paragraph, then, I
propose to systematize these four categories by means of a
metatheoretical taxonomy, which will allow us to circumscribe and
(inter)define their heuristic and semantic boundaries. More precisely, I


                                                                               179
Zecca, Understanding Media Relations in the Age of Convergence: A Metatheoretical Taxonomy



will try to reframe and stabilize definitions of the categories discussed
in the previous paragraph according to some basic parameters.
      The first useful parameter is closely related to what discussed in
the first paragraph. As we have seen, the digital revolution has
deconstructed the traditional techno-linguistic structure of the media, to
a point that now languages transcend (and emancipate themselves
from) devices and vice versa. According to this perspective, we can start
by dividing those categories into two main typologies, depending on
whether they focus primarily on the technological or on the linguistic
dimension of the medium. More precisely, we can say that
crossmediality and multimediality concern the relations established
between different media at a technological and infrastructural level;
whereas transmediality and intermediality concern the relations
established between different media on the linguistic dimension.
      More precisely, crossmedia relations are based on the circulation of
the same content in different environment or devices (think for instance
of a film that “flows” through movie theatres, satellite TV, video
streaming platforms, urban screens, etc.). On the contrary, multimedia
relations are founded on the “material” co-presence of different contents
in the same environment or device (as it happens, for instance, in specific
artistic installations or theatre performances). Transmedia relations
develop instead from the joint articulation of the same content through
different media languages (as in the emblematic case of transmedia
storytelling). And finally, intermedial relations are based on the transfer
of the same content from one media language to another (as it happens
in film adaptations of comics, for instance).
      These four categories can therefore be distinguished depending on
whether the relations between media are based on the technological
dimension or the linguistic one. Other two parameters can be added to
this initial bipartition: the objects on which the relation is based (in other
words, what relates with what); and the modes through which the relation
develops (in other words, how the relation forms). In addition to the first
one, these two further parameters provide essential information in order
to assign each category a (more) univocal and homogeneous heuristic
foundation. For more clarity, prior to discussing each category in more


180
                                            Between, vol. X, n. 20 (November 2020)



detail, I have schematized my observations with the help of the
following table:

                      Plan of the       Object of the         Mode of the
                       relation           relation             relation

Crossmediality                        Media product           Conduction
                    Technological
                                         Material
Multimediality                           signifiers          Combination

                                         Narrative
Transmediality                           universe              Dispersion
                      Linguistic
                                         Linguistic
Intermediality                         configurations         Translation



     As we can see, according to this hypothesis of metatheoretical
reorganization, crossmediality is based on the conduction of a single
media product (a feature-length film, a TV episode, a song, a news
bulletin, etc.) through different media platforms (TV screens, computers,
smartphones, urban screens, etc.). The term “media product” is
employed here in a broad sense, to describe a “finished” object,
recognizable at a social level and ascribable to specific discursive genres
and production categories (film horror, sitcom, rock music, press
commentary, etc.). I draw instead the term “conduction” from physics
in order to describe the “logistic” operations (Pescatore 2010: 22) that
characterize crossmediality – precisely the transfer and delivery of
products through several channels and media.
     Moreover, on the socio-economical level, crossmedia relations are
at the crossroads between two convergent drives. On the one hand, they
are in fact closely related to the new multi-platform distribution
strategies the media industry has been implementing after the digital



                                                                              181
Zecca, Understanding Media Relations in the Age of Convergence: A Metatheoretical Taxonomy



revolution with the aim of maximizing profits. On the other, they are
directly related to the new forms of “anytime, anywhere” access to
media products that characterize the current “on demand culture”
(Tryon 2013), and that emerge also thanks to “informal” consumption
practices, such as piracy (Lobato 2012).
      Multimediality is based instead on the combination of material
signifiers related to different media in one single (new) artifact – which
originates precisely from their sum. In other words, multimedia
relations postulate the actual co-presence – within a single work or text
– of semiotically autonomous media units, which correlation is first and
foremost infrastructural. Think for instance of an artistic installation like
Chris Marker’s Zapping Zone (1985). This installation «brings together
elements from Marker’s previously known film and photography
projects […] with a new set of computer-generated works, and a series
of short video pieces» (Lupton 2005), with the aim of reflecting (and
encouraging reflections) on the relationship between scopic regimes,
social imaginaries, and different technologies of vision. Or, the so-called
“real time films” by the New York based Big Art Group ensemble (Fazi
2005), in which elements of theatre (the stage), cinema (the screen, the
camera) and television (the green screen) are materially and spatially
combined in order to create a performance capable of reflecting on its
own multimedia composition.
      Transmediality is related instead to the systemic and coordinated
dispersion of a (single) storyworld across different media. I use the term
dispersion as it has been employed by Jenkins in his definition of
transmedia storytelling as «a process where integral elements of a fiction
get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels» (2007, my
emphasis). Drawing on Marie-Laure Ryan, I use the term “storyworld”
to identify a specific environment inhabited by specific characters, in
which a series of events occur in accordance to specific physical and
social laws (2014: 34-37). More precisely, this process of transmedia
dispersion takes at least two different forms (Dena 2009; Rampazzo
2013): narrative continuation, in which a single story (and its universe)
is developed in an integrated manner across multiple media products
(films, TV series, videogames, comics, etc.), each of which actualizes a


182
                                                Between, vol. X, n. 20 (November 2020)



specific portion of the storyline; and diegetic expansion, in which
different media products deliver autonomous and independent stories,
each of which, however, contributes systemically and by accumulation
to the expansion of a shared storyworld. A “classic” example of the first
form is the renowned Matrix franchise (1999-2005), in which the story of
Neo and the other members of the resistance against the dictatorship of
the machines is told across a film trilogy, an animated TV series, a series
of comics, and two videogames. An emblematic example of the second
form is represented instead by the Marvel Cinematic Universe (created
in 2008 and still in progress), which includes not only the movies
inspired by Marvel superheroes, but also several TV series, web series,
and comic series – each developing stories that are autonomous though
integral to the same storyworld, sharing (again according to Ryan) the
same physical and social laws.
     In both cases, however, transmedia relations aim to embed the
viewers (and their consumption practices) in a complex narrative
system, transforming them in “hunters and gatherers” ready to “jump”
from one medium to another in order to reconstruct the stories and the
universes in their entirety and depth.
     Finally, intermediality is based on the translation of the linguistic
configurations of one medium into another. I draw the idea of linguistic
configurations from Louis Hjelmslev (1961) to describe the modes
through which the figures of expression and the figures of content are
articulated within a text2. The term “translation” is instead employed
here in its intersemiotic meaning (Dusi 2003; 2015) to describe the
process of transfer and remake of these configurations from one medium
to another. As I stated elsewhere (Zecca 2013; 2017), this very complex
mechanism can affect elements of different textual depth and width.
Considering, for example, the cinematic translation of US comic books,
the transfer can extensively affect the entire narrative structure of a


     2
       According to Hjelmslev, figures are “non signs [that] enter sign systems
as parts of signs” (1961: 46). Both the plan of expression and the plan of content
of every text are formally articulated in different figures.



                                                                                  183
Zecca, Understanding Media Relations in the Age of Convergence: A Metatheoretical Taxonomy



source text, as it happens for instance in V for Vendetta (Dir. James
McTeigue, USA-UK-DE, 2005), film adaptation of the homonymous
graphic novel (written by Alan Moore and drawn by David Lloyd
between 1982 and 1985). Or, it can focus on a single strategy of
expression generally employed in comics, as it happens in Scott Pilgrim
vs the World (Edgar Wright, USA-UK-JP-CA 2010) – film adaptation of
the homonymous comic book series by Bryan Lee O’Malley (released
between 2004 and 2010) – in which live action images are interspersed
with “drawn” onomatopoeia. Or again, it can involve specific
“fragments” of a source text, as it happens in the opening credits of Sin
City, in which the names of the leading actors are superimposed on parts
of the original panels of the source comic book series (written and drawn
by Frank Miller between 1991 and 2000).
      Moreover, as observed by Werner Wolf (2005), intermedial
relations can be covert or overt. In the first case, the typical
configurations of a source medium are, so to speak, completely
“overwritten” by the target medium, which tries to appropriate them by
erasing (or at least relativizing) the traces of their origin. This is what
happens, for instance, in several film adaptations, which try to convert
the source text in pure and autonomous cinematic spectacle. In the
second case, the configurations of the source medium appear instead
iconically present in the target medium, within which they create fully-
fledged «semiological interferences» (Metz 1974: 212). For example, a
number of shots in the first sequence of Gamer (Dir. Mark Neveldine,
Brian Taylor, USA, 2009) explicitly try to mimic the graphic interface of
videogames, interpolating the cinematic image with the typical control
icons (such as the ones showing the available weapons and
ammunitions) that characterize a first-person shooter. In general terms,
intermedial relations seem to be based on two counterposed
movements: the appropriation by the target medium of narrative
imaginaries and expressive tools of the source medium; and/or the
hybridization of the target medium with the source medium, which
becomes therefore at least in part “other than itself”.
      To sum up: crossmediality describes the conduction of a single
media product across multiple platforms in order to multiply its profits


184
                                            Between, vol. X, n. 20 (November 2020)



and social diffusion; multimediality is the combination of the material
signifiers of different media aimed at creating a new artifact;
transmediality is based on the dispersion of a single narrative universe
across multiple media in order to embed the viewers into it;
intermediality occurs when one medium translates the linguistic
configuration of another medium, with the double goal of appropriate
or hybridize each other.
     Finally, I would like to add that some specific phenomena exceed
the single category and are best described by the interaction of two or
more of them. For instance, alternate reality games (ARG) are interactive
games that combine online and real-life activity and are sometimes used
to advertise films or TV series – as in the case of Why So Serious, ARG
related to the movie The Dark Knight (Dir. Christopher Nolan, UK-USA,
2008) or The Lost Experience, ARG related to the TV series Lost (2004-
2010). Alternate reality games are indeed characterized by what we can
term “multimedia-transmedia” relations, given that in this case the
combination of the material signifiers of different media
(multimediality) is not aimed at creating a new artifact, but is instead
designed for expanding a specific narrative universe (transmediality), to
which these games represent a further access point.
     In conclusion, through this hypothesis of metatheoretical
reorganization, I think that it is possible to provide these four categories
– multimediality, intermediality, crossmediality and transmediality –
with more precise theoretical foundation and heuristic value. Of course,
this is just a first attempt at systematization, which needs to be
developed on both the theoretical/metatheoretical and the
methodological/analytical level. However, I hope these observations
could already be of some use and help encourage further elaboration.




                                                                              185
Zecca, Understanding Media Relations in the Age of Convergence: A Metatheoretical Taxonomy




                                    Works Cited
Bluestone, George, Novels into Film, Berkeley, University of California
     Press, 1971.
Bolter, Jay David - Grusin, Richard, Remediation: Understanding New Me-
     dia, Cambridge-London, The MIT Press, 1999.
Brand, Stewart, The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at MIT, New York,
     Viking, 1987.
Casetti, Francesco, “Novi territori. Multiplex, Home Theater, canali te-
     matici, peer to peer e la trasformazione dell’esperienza di visione ci-
     nematografica”, Terre incognite: lo spettatore italiano e le nuove forme
     dell’esperienza di visione del film, Eds. Casetti, Francesco - Fanchi, Ma-
     riagrazia, Roma, Carocci, 2006: 9-13.
Id., “L’esperienza filmica e la ri-locazione del cinema”, Fata Morgana, 4
     (2008a): 23-40.
Id., Eye of the Century: Film, Experience, Modernity, New York, Columbia
     University Press, 2008b.
Id., The Lumière Galaxy: Seven Keywords for the Cinema to Come, New York,
     Columbia University Press, 2015.
Castells, Manuel, The Rise of the Network Society, Cambridge-Oxford,
     Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
de Sola Pool, Ithiel, Technologies of Freedom, Cambridge-London, The
     Belknap Press, 1983.
Dena, Christy, Transmedia Practice: Theorising the Practice of Expressing a
     Fictional World across Distinct Media and Environments, PhD Thesis,
     Department of Media and Communications, University of Sydney,
     2009.
Dusi, Nicola, Il cinema come traduzione. Da un medium all’altro: letteratura,
     cinema, pittura, Torino, UTET, 2003.
Id., “Intersemiotic translation: Theories, problems, analysis”, Semiotica,
     206 (2015): 181–205.
Fazi, Riccardo, “Big art group: il futuro del (non) teatro”, Biblioteca tea-
     trale, 74-77 (2005): 215-242.
Fidler, Roger, Mediamorphosis: Understanding New Media, Thousand
     Oaks-London-New Delhi, Pine Forge Press, 1997.


186
                                            Between, vol. X, n. 20 (November 2020)



Gaudreault, André, From Plato to Lumière: Narration and Monstration in
     Literature and Cinema, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2009.
Giovagnoli, Max, Fare Cross-media, Roma, Dino Audino, 2004.
Id., Cross-media. Le nuove narrazione, Milano, Apogeo, 2009.
Id., Transmedia Storytelling: Imagery, Shapes and Techniques, Pittsburgh,
     ETC Press, 2011.
Id., Transmedia. Storytelling e comunicazione, Milano, Apogeo, 2013.
Groensteen, Thierry, The System of Comics, Jackson, University Press of
     Mississipi, 2007.
Hayes, Gary, “Cross-media”, Personalizemedia, 2006, http://www.per-
     sonalizemedia.com/articles/cross-media, web (last accessed
     23/06/2020).
Hjelmslev, Louis, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, Madison, Univer-
     sity of Wisconsin Press, 1961.
Jenkins, Henry, “Convergence? I Diverge”, Technology Review, (2001): 93.
Id., Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, New York-
     London, New York University Press, 2006.
Id., “Transmedia Storytelling 101”, Confessions of an Aca-Fan: The Official
     Weblog      of  Henry      Jenkins,  (2007),   http://www.henryjen-
     kins.org/2007/03/transmedia_storytelling_101.html, web (last ac-
     cessed 27/05/2020).
Kittler, Friedrich, Gramophone, Film, Typewriter, Redwood City, Stanford
     University Press, 1999.
Klastrup, Lisbeth - Tosca, Susanna, “Transmedial Worlds: Rethinking
     Cyberworld Design”, AA. VV., Proceedings of the International Confer-
     ence on Cyberworlds 2004, Tokyo, 2004: 409-416.
Klich, Rosemary - Scheer, Edward, Multimedia Performance, London, Pal-
     grave Macmillan, 2011.
Krauss, Rosalind, A Voyage on the North Sea: Art in the Age of the Post-
     Medium Condition, London, Thames & Hudson, 1999.
Lévy, Pierre, Cyberculture, Minneapolis-London, University of Minne-
     sota Press, 2001.
Lobato, Ramon, Shadow Economies of Cinema: Mapping Informal Film Dis-
     tribution, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.



                                                                              187
Zecca, Understanding Media Relations in the Age of Convergence: A Metatheoretical Taxonomy



Lunenfeld, Peter, “Unfinished Business”, The Digital Dialectic: New Es-
    says on New Media, Ed. Lunefeld, Peter, Cambridge, The MIT Press,
    1999: 7-21.
Lupton, Catherine, Chris Marker: Memories of the Future, London, Reak-
    tion Books, 2005.
Manovich, Lev, Software Takes Command, New York, Bloomsbury, 2013.
Mariniello, Silvestra, “L’intermédialité: un concept polymorphe”, Inter
    Média. Littérature, cinéma et intermédialité, Eds. Vieira, Célia - Rio
    Novo, Isabel, L’Harmattan, Paris, 2011: 11-30.
McLuhan, Marshall, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, New
    York, McGraw-Hill, 1964.
Meehan, Eileen R., “'Holy Commodity Fetish, Batman!': The Political
    Economy of a Commercial Intertext”, The Many Lives of the Batman:
    Critical Approaches to a Superhero and His Media, Eds. Pearson, Rob-
    erta - Uricchio, William, New York-London, Routledge-BFI, 1991:
    47-65.
Metz, Christian, Language and Cinema, The Hague-Paris, Muton, 1974.
Montani, Piero, L’immaginazione intermediale. Perlustrare, rifigurare, testi-
    moniare il mondo visibile, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2010.
Monteverdi, Anna Maria, Leggere uno spettacolo multimediale, Roma, Dino
    Audino, 2020.
Müller, Jürgen E., “Vers l’intermédialité. Histoires, positions et option
    d’un axe de pertinence”, Médiamorphoses, 16 (2006): 99-100.
Negri, Erica, La rivoluzione transmediale. Dal testo audiovisivo alla progetta-
    zione crossmediale di mondi narrativi, Torino, Lindau, 2015.
Pescatore, Guglielmo, “Convergenza digitale e nuove forme culturali”,
    Corto circuito. Il cinema nell’era della convergenza, Ed. Fadda, Michele,
    Bologna, Archetipo Libri, 2011: 19-27.
Rajewsky, Irina O., Intermedialität, Tübingen, A. Francke, 2000.
Ead., “Intermediality, Intertextuality, and Remediation: A Literary Per-
    spective on Intermediality”, Intermédialités, 6 (2005): 49-60.
Rampazzo Gambarato, Ramira, “Transmedia Project Design: Theoreti-
    cal and Analytical Considerations”, Baltic Screen Media Review, 1.1
    (2013): 81-100.



188
                                              Between, vol. X, n. 20 (November 2020)



Ryan, Marie-Laure, “Story/Worlds/Media: Tuning the Instruments of a
     Media-Conscious Narratology”, Storyworlds across Media: Toward a
     Media-Conscious Narratology, Eds. Ryan, Marie-Laure - Thon, Jan-
     Noel, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 2014: 25-49.
Schatz, Thomas, “The New Hollywood”, Film Theory Goes to the Movies,
     Eds. Collins, Jim - Radner, Hillary - Preacher Collins, Ava, London-
     New York, Routledge, 1993: 8-36.
Scolari, Carlos Alberto, “Transmedia Storytelling: Implicit Consumers,
     Narrative Worlds, and Branding in Contemporary Media Produc-
     tion”, International Journal of Communication, 3 (2009): 586-606.
Tryon, Chuck, On-Demand Culture: Digital Delivery and the Future of Mov-
     ies, New Brunswick-New Jersey-London, Rutgers University Press,
     2013.
Valentini, Paola, La scena rubata: il cinema italiano e lo spettacolo popolare,
     1924-1954, Milano, Vita & Pensiero, 2002.
Wolf, Werner, “Intermediality”, Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative The-
     ory, Eds. Herman, David - Jahn, Manfred - Ryan, Marie-Laure, Lon-
     don-New York, Routledge, 2005: 252-256.
Id., The Musicalization of Fiction: A Study in the Theory and History of Inter-
     mediality, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 1999.
Zecca, Federico, Cinema e intermedialità. Modelli di traduzione, Udine, Fo-
     rum, 2013.
Id., “Comics in Motion: The Intersemiotic Translation of Comics into
     Film”, New Semiotics Between Tradition and Innovation: Proceedings of
     the 12th World Congress of the International Association for Semiotic
     Studies (IASS/AIS), IASS Publications & NBU Publishing House,
     2017: 929-940, https://iass-ais.org/proceedings2014/Semio2014Pro-
     ceedings.pdf (last accessed 23/06/2020).




                                                                                189
Zecca, Understanding Media Relations in the Age of Convergence: A Metatheoretical Taxonomy




                                     The Author
Federico Zecca

       Federico Zecca is Associate Professor in Film and Media Studies
at University of Bari “Aldo Moro” (Italy). He is co-editor of the journals
Cinéma & Cie: International Film Studies and Cinergie: Il cinema e le altre
arti, and member of the editorial board of the journal Porn Studies. He is
member of the scientific committee of the Udine/Gorizia Film Forum
and one of the coordinators of the Porn Studies Section of the MAGIS –
Gorizia International Film Studies Spring School. He has published
widely on intertextuality, intermediality, media convergence, Italian
popular cinema, and US pornography.

        Email: federico.zecca@gmail.com



                                     The Article
Date sent: 15/07/2020
Date accepted: 20/10/2020
Date published: 30/11/2020



                            How to cite this article
Zecca, Federico, “Understanding Media Relations in the Age of
Convergence: A Metatheoretical Taxonomy”, Transmediality /
Intermediality / Crossmediality: Problems of Definition, Eds. H.-J. Backe –
M.Fusillo – M. Lino, with the focus section Intermedial Dante: Reception,
Appropriation, Metamorphosis, Eds. C. Fischer – M. Petricola., Between,
X.20 (2020), http://www.Between-journal.it/




190
