69249454-chandler-semiotics

98
SEMIOTICS: THE BASICS
young–old). Furthermore, the extent to which a term was marked
was variable. Some terms seemed to be far more clearly marked than
others: in the pairing public–private, for instance, private was very
clearly the marked term (accorded secondary status). How strongly
a term is marked also depends on contextual frameworks such as
genres and sociolects, and in some contexts a pairing may be very
deliberately and explicitly reversed when an interest group seeks to
challenge the ideological priorities which the markedness may be
taken to reflect. Not all of the pairs listed will seem to be ‘the right
way round’ to everyone – you may find it interesting to identify
which ones seem counterintuitive to you and to speculate as to why
this seems so.
The concept of markedness can be applied more broadly than
simply to paradigmatic pairings of words or concepts. Whether in textual
or social practices, the choice of a marked form ‘makes a statement’.
Where a text deviates from conventional expectations it is
‘marked’. Conventional, or ‘over-coded’ text (which follows a fairly
predictable formula) is unmarked whereas unconventional or ‘undercoded’
text is marked. Marked or under-coded text requires the interpreter
to do more interpretive work. Nor is the existence of marked
forms simply a structural feature of semiotic systems. The distinction
between norm and deviation is fundamental in socialization (Bruner
1990). Social differentiation is constructed and maintained through
the marking of differences. Unmarked forms reflect the naturalization
of dominant cultural values. Binary oppositions are almost
invariably weighted in favour of the male, silently signifying that the
norm is to be male and to be female is to be different.
Jakobson observed in 1930 that markedness ‘has a significance
not only for linguistics but also for ethnology and the history of
culture, and that such historico-cultural correlations as life–death,
liberty–nonliberty, sin–virtue, holidays–working days, and so on are
always confined to relations a–non-a, and that it is important to find
out for any epoch, group, nation etc. what the marked element is’
(Jakobson 1980a, 136). However natural familiar dichotomies and
their markedness may seem, their historical origins or phases of
dominance can often be traced. For instance, perhaps the most influential
dualism in the history of Western civilization can be attributed