05.01.2013 Views

Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler

Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler

Semiotics for Beginners by Daniel Chandler

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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%+*

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!