Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler
Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler
Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Semiotics</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Beginners</strong> <strong>by</strong> <strong>Daniel</strong> <strong>Chandler</strong><br />
semioticians to grapple with the implications of new theories <strong>for</strong> their framing of the semiotic<br />
enterprise. Furthermore, contemporary apologists have noted that there is nothing new about the<br />
emphasis on the social dimension of semiotics. The roots of social semiotics can be traced to the<br />
early theorists. Neither Saussure nor Peirce studied the social use of signs. However, Saussure did<br />
envisage semiotics as 'a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life'. As <strong>for</strong> Peirce,<br />
the notion of semiosis as a dialogic process is central to his thinking. Signs do not exist without<br />
interpreters, and semiotic codes are of course social conventions. However, it has to be<br />
acknowledged that an emphasis on the social dimension of semiotics in the <strong>for</strong>m of the study of<br />
specific meaning-making practices is relatively recent outside of specialized academic journals and it<br />
is not yet much in evidence at the heart of the activities of many semiotic researchers.<br />
<strong>Semiotics</strong> is not, never has been, and seems unlikely ever to be, an academic discipline in its own<br />
right. It is now widely regarded primarily as one mode of analysis amongst others rather than as a<br />
'science' of cultural <strong>for</strong>ms.<br />
Strengths of Semiotic Analysis<br />
<strong>Semiotics</strong> can help to denaturalize theoretical assumptions in academia just as in everyday life; it can<br />
thus raise new theoretical issues (Culler 1985, 102; Douglas 1982, 199). Whilst this means that many<br />
scholars who encounter semiotics find it unsettling, others find it exciting. Semiotic techniques 'in<br />
which the analogy of language as a system is extended to culture as a whole' can be seen as<br />
representing 'a substantial break from the positivist and empirical traditions which had limited much<br />
previous cultural theory' (Franklin et al. 1996, 263). Robert Hodge and Gunther Kress argue that<br />
unlike many academic disciplines, 'semiotics offers the promise of a systematic, comprehensive and<br />
coherent study of communications phenomena as a whole, not just instances of it' (Hodge & Kress<br />
1988, 1). <strong>Semiotics</strong> provides us with a potentially unifying conceptual framework and a set of<br />
methods and terms <strong>for</strong> use across the full range of signifying practices, which include gesture,<br />
posture, dress, writing, speech, photography, film, television and radio. <strong>Semiotics</strong> may not itself be a<br />
discipline but it is at least a focus of enquiry, with a central concern <strong>for</strong> meaning-making practices<br />
which conventional academic disciplines treat as peripheral. As David Sless notes, 'we consult<br />
linguists to find out about language, art historians or critics to find out about paintings, and<br />
anthropologists to find out how people in different societies signal to each other through gesture,<br />
dress or decoration. But if we want to know what all these different things have in common then we<br />
need to find someone with a semiotic point of view, a vantage point from which to survey our world'<br />
(Sless 1986, 1). David Mick suggests, <strong>for</strong> instance, that 'no discipline concerns itself with<br />
representation as strictly as semiotics does' (Mick 1988, 20; my emphasis). <strong>Semiotics</strong> <strong>for</strong>egrounds<br />
and problematizes the process of representation.<br />
Traditional structural semiotics was primarily applied to textual analysis but it is misleading to identify<br />
contemporary semiotics with structuralism. The turn to social semiotics has been reflected in an<br />
increasing concern with the role of the reader. In either <strong>for</strong>m, semiotics is invaluable if we wish to look<br />
beyond the manifest content of texts. Structuralist semiotics seeks to look behind or beneath the<br />
surface of the observed in order to discover the underlying organization of phenomena. The more<br />
obvious the structural organization of a text or code may seem to be, the more difficult it may be to<br />
see beyond such surface features (Langholz Leymore 1975, 9). Searching <strong>for</strong> what is 'hidden'<br />
beneath the 'obvious' can lead to fruitful insights. <strong>Semiotics</strong> is also well adapted to exploring