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 />
In the pairing of oppositions or contraries, Term B is defined relationally rather than substantively. The<br />
linguistic marking of signifiers in many of these pairings is referred to as 'privative' - consisting of<br />
suffixes or prefixes signifying lack or absence - e.g. non-, un- or -less. In such cases, Term B is<br />
defined <strong>by</strong> negation - being everything that Term A is not. For example, when we refer to 'non-verbal<br />
communication', the very label defines such a mode of communication only in negative relation to<br />
'verbal communication'. Indeed, the unmarked term is not merely neutral but implicitly positive in<br />
contrast to the negative connotations of the marked term. For the French psychoanalyst Jacques<br />
Lacan the marked term in the pairing of men/women is negatively defined within 'the symbolic order'<br />
in terms of the absence or lack of a privileged signifier associated with control and power - the phallus<br />
(though see feminist critiques of Lacan's phallocentrism, e.g. Lovell 1983, 44-45). The association of<br />
the marked term with absence and lack is of course problematized <strong>by</strong> those who have noted the irony<br />
that the dependence of Term A on Term B can be seen as reflecting a lack on the part of the<br />
unmarked term (Fuss 1991, 3).<br />
The unmarked <strong>for</strong>m is typically dominant (e.g. statistically within a text or corpus) and there<strong>for</strong>e<br />
seems to be 'neutral', 'normal' and 'natural'. It is thus 'transparent' - drawing no attention to its invisibly<br />
privileged status, whilst the deviance of the marked <strong>for</strong>m is salient. Where it is not totally excluded,<br />
the 'marked' <strong>for</strong>m is <strong>for</strong>egrounded - presented as 'different'; it is 'out of the ordinary' - an extraordinary<br />
deviational 'special case' which is something other than the standard or default <strong>for</strong>m of the unmarked<br />
term (Nöth 1990, 76; Culler 1989, 271). Unmarked/marked may thus be read as norm/deviation. It is<br />
notable that empirical studies have demonstrated that cognitive processing is more difficult with<br />
marked terms than with unmarked terms (Clark & Clark 1977). Marked <strong>for</strong>ms take longer to recognize<br />
and process and more errors are made with these <strong>for</strong>ms.<br />
hig<br />
h<br />
I<br />
N<br />
90%+*<br />
indoor/outdoor<br />
up/down<br />
yes/no<br />
East/West<br />
open/closed<br />
wet/dry<br />
question/answer<br />
true/false<br />
major/minor 80%+*<br />
hot/cold on/off<br />
reader/writer public/private<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e/after male/female<br />
love/hate high/low<br />
top/bottom parent/child 70%+*<br />
good/bad internal/external black/white<br />
cause/effect gain/loss mind/body 60%+*