01.02.2015 Views

69249454-chandler-semiotics

69249454-chandler-semiotics

69249454-chandler-semiotics

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8222<br />

9<br />

10<br />

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9<br />

20<br />

1222<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9<br />

30<br />

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7222<br />

4<br />

CHALLENGING<br />

THE LITERAL<br />

Semiotics represents a challenge to the ‘literal’ because it rejects the<br />

possibility that we can neutrally represent ‘the way things are’. In this<br />

chapter we will explore the ways in which semioticians have problematized<br />

two key distinctions: that at the level of the signifier between<br />

the literal and the figurative and that at the level of the signified<br />

between denotation and connotation.<br />

RHETORICAL TROPES<br />

A sea-change in academic discourse, which has been visible in many<br />

disciplines, has been dubbed ‘the rhetorical turn’ or ‘the discursive<br />

turn’. The central proposition of this contemporary trend is that<br />

rhetorical forms are deeply and unavoidably involved in the shaping<br />

of realities. Form and content are inseparable. Language is not a<br />

neutral medium and our choice of words matters. The North<br />

American literary theorist Stanley Fish insists that ‘it is impossible<br />

to mean the same thing in two (or more) different ways’ (Fish 1980,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!