Social Semiotics Robert Hodge and Gunther Kress Comell University Press Tihaea, New York‘orb Ree Ha a ae Ko 188 ges Eel genni bn ttn mee SES mi ty Seo ee i, Sta pts 8 Coma Unt Po ‘halon Come ep Lr one Canoga Pb Da dy, ern Ye) Ire a SINCE Gtk (29054 7 1999 rey Mmm, Hann Down ined re Ban Be Pao Cal Contents Preface Acknowledgements 1 Saal Semin Ideological complexes and logonomic systems ‘Message, text and discourse Genre, conformity and resistance ‘Socal semiotics and the analysis of texts 2 The Founding Fathers Revisited Seussore’s rubbish bin Socesy and the sign How signs work ‘Semiotics and reality Structural and the materaty of sens History, change, transformation 3 Comet as Meaning: the Somiasic Dimension ‘Messages of power and soldaiy Media constructions of power a ology and bodies in Space ‘The meaning of frames ‘The ideology of ways of sting Ideology and the constuction af gender Domain and antiworld ‘Rial space and time 4 Sole a lelogy Sipe, accent, grammar as metasgn Accent, difference, community Cass, culture and stereotype salidarty‘Metasigns of gender Sige a symptomatic 5 Saial Defitons of he Real ‘Towards a genera theory of modality Modality of visual media ‘Modality a rik ‘Modaliy and control Difference and the constrtion of communis 6 Trangormatin and Time ‘Semiotics and history ‘Towards « materialist theory of transformations Semiosis in time ‘Syncheoni syatagms and frozen time ‘Montage as wanstormaton Reading history Decoding & classic 1 Transformations of Love and Power: the Soil Meeing of Naratse ‘Semiotics ofthe fami text ‘The socal meaning of Osis Family photos and familial texts app families and narrative order: taking the time out of history 8 Entering Seis: rnin Subj for Culture "Look, those are the instrucsons: early steps into ender and power ‘Teeth or pimples: encuturation or resistance Production and reproduction of meaning (Codes and Subjects the ease of writing Appendix: Key Concepts in a Theory of Social Semiois Anneated Eibiography References Index 97 107 2 1 18 13 ur 131 162 162 163 168 M3 15 182 12 205 210 2a 29 40 240 245 29 253 261 Mm Preface ‘This book represents a stage ina projet that has been under way for cover a decade. In 1979 we published a book entiled Longue at Teslngy, which was the culmination of six year’ wotk in developing what We elled variously a usable linguist’, of “ral linguistics ‘This was a theory of language whose aim wast provide an iuminating account of verbal language as 2 social phenomenon, especialy for the ‘se of eitcal theorists ina range of disciplines ~ history, Htrary and ‘media studies, edveaton, sociology ~ who wanted to explore social and politcal fores and processes as they act though and on texts and forms of discourse. The theory has heen wel received by those whom wwe had hoped to reach. However, there ate a number of intrinsic Tinitations in the scope ofthat theory. We have fel the need to redress these, im order to full our inal sm for usable, ete theory of Tanguage. Some ofthese limittions we take up later inthe book, Here wre sess the to premises that consute the basis fOr ou present enterprise. The fst is the primacy of the social dimension in Understanding language structures and processes In Langue a del) wwe had recognized and assumed the importance of the social dimension, but even so we had accepted texts and the structure of language a the normal staring point for analysis. We now see socal stuctres and processes, mesages and meanings a the proper standpoint from which to atempt the amass of meaning systems. Secondly, we see the limitation wo verbal language in our earlier work as major inconvenience in terms of our own main purpose. Meaning resides so srongy and perasivey in other systems of meaning, ina mulipliy of visual, tural, behavioural and other codes, that 2 concentration on wards alone is not enough. Hence we were led, inevitably, o our second premise, namely that no single code can’ be successfully studied oF ful) “understood in isolation. So, a theory of verbal language hast be seen im the context ofa theory ofall sign systems as socially consuted,and erated a6 socil practices. That led us to this extension of our faer enterprise, and. hence the tie of this present book: Sal Smit. Tact Lenguage at ely grow ot of general semiotic considerations which were left implicit heeause a hat ste we felt unable to theorize ‘them adequately It seemed valid t us at that ime to foes intensively fon a part of semiosis on stuctares and function of verbal language, leaving the wider framework to be taken for granted. An oseilation Themeen part and whole as proven is value in many other fields of| ‘engity. Our present book has 2 complementary movement to that of| Language os Tas, and both have for us been essential moments in ‘single enterprise, Without our intensive grappling wth verbal language Gnd with various taditons of Hnguise theory, our ventures into Semioves would. have been Table to vague vacuity. Without ‘confrontation with the problems of general semiotics, our modes of anal, even of verbal language, would have been cf less practical benefit to other stents of teology and eultre. We continue fo stress the poten alu of inguistiethenves, when released from ther often restive formulation, and the need for lingusies and the study of verbal Language to be thoroughly assimilated into a general theory of the social processes through which meaning is construed and as ts effet. ‘We hope our hook wll have a practical value for people working on sitferent problems, perhaps in diferent institutional. setingS, but needing to trace in precise ways the transaction of meaning insets of texts, whether those texs are verbal or visual, or embedded in specific bjt, actions, practices oF behaviours. Bur though we see i value ‘consisting in is-contbusion to various analytic practices over ge of dsepines, that i not to say we offer itas a ox of ck that fnyone can make use of, whatever their orientation and purpose. We tse our work on a number of premises in a theory of communication and socieey We see comico essentially as a proces, not a8 iscmbodied set of meanings or texs. Meaning is produced and produced under specific social conditions, through specific material forms and agencies Ie exists in relationship to concrete subjects and abject, and i inexplicable excep in terms ofthis set of relationships Societys typically constituted by stractures and relations of power, ‘exercised or tested fs characterized by conflict aswell as cohesion, thatthe strates of meaning a al level, fom dominant ideological forms to local act of meaning will show traces of contradiction, ambiguity polysemy in various proportions, by various means. So for 1s, tens and contents, agents and objects of meaning, socal structures 1 forces and their complex increationships together coasute the ‘minimal and reducible object of semiosc analysis. This is undoubtedly 4 complex and demanding objet of anahsis. However the seemingly ‘Simpler assumption, which considers codes, texts and meanings in Jaolaton, runs out to have is own complet, no less dificult and ultimately fr less adeguate tothe tak ‘Many people have conibuted ideas, critcsm and material asous| stages in the slow gestation of this book, whose help we gratefully acinowledge. OF many writers who have influenced ws who are ‘mentioned in references, we woud keto single out M.A. K. Halidsy, not only for his theoretical texts such as Language at Soil Semon, bot for his inspiring example asa researcher, teacher and explorer of the socal functions of language. A‘number of scholars have published ertcsms of our earier work which we have found simulating and ‘useful, even if we have not agreed with every suggestion. We would specially like to: mention here Pierre Achar Jon Frow, Richard Helgersan and John ‘Thompson. John Thompson also read and tommented with acuity and generosity’ on an earir daft of this tet, ‘which benefited very greatly from his eicsms. Some colleagues have been especialy helpful with ideas or discussion. OF spechl note ae Stephen Muecke ofthe University of Technology, Sey, Noel King of Curtin University of Technology, and Alan Manse, Hort Ruthrof and Michael O'Toole of Murdoch University, Mater comments and discussions have been contributed by Amie Goldman, Steve Sincie, Anne’ Cranny-Francis, Rachel Kress, Jonathan Kress and Cathy Mion. We thank these and all the many others who have permitted us to use thee eats and. discourse “The scale of the contribution of Pam Hodge and Jil Brewster i too reat to be merely acknowledged. Most of the chapters inthis book ‘were tested on them in such close debate shar many tess init owe a8 ‘much to them as 10 us; though we remain responsible forall erors and misunderstanings i till conan. ‘inaly our thanks To Cynthia Baker, under whose magic hand what mas lost was found, and a chaos of legible fragments came together ina single Beautiful ypeseriptAcknowledgements ‘The authors and publishers are gratefil to the fllowing fr permission to reprodace material aeady publshed elsewhere: Patick Cooly The Bullen for plate 6.1); DC Comies Ine for plate 6.2; Wonder Toman fsa trademark of DC Comics Ine. station © 1983 used with permission), D.C. Thomson and Co, Lid (or plate 5.1; Harper & Row (lor the text of the poem °Chid, from The Collate Poon of ‘Sia Plath ete by Ted Hughes. Copyright © 1972 by Ted Hughes. Reprinted by permission of Harper 8 Rov, Publishers Inc), Olwyn Hughes (for the text ofthe poem Chil’, fom Collet Bao by Sybia Path, published by Faber S Faber, London, copyright Ted Hughes 1965'and 1981, published by permission of Olvyn Hughes, and for Plate 4.3 of the manuscript at Smith College, copyright Ted Hughes 4nd published hy permission of Olwyn Hughes); Michael Joseph Lid (for plates 72, 7.3, from Only One nf by James Herig iusested by Peer Hare, published by Michal Josep; The Mansell Colleton (Gor plates 3.1, 4.2, 63, 64); Marvel Comics Limited (or pate 5:2 © 1981 BBC; Bil Mitchell The uctalion newspaper (for plate 4.1, The ‘Siar (ir pate 5.6}, The Sun (for plate 5.7), The Telegraph Colour Library (fe plate 32). Social Semiotics The term seniosi reltnely new for many people, and number of conceal ies comin ty atch 0 fs tse. Semis has teen define she sciece of the lie of sgn im sey” Cause 197%). So dened it ha scope which resting ns spy and ini comprehesien Tn terms, cenhing in care ch ie sen av afr of communicaton, rant in way an fora Iangage, to be undentod interno common st of findamenal ‘es or prince In academe ston toy the sty of sch thenomens often fegmented and pred ou anonga a mae Of dscipins: phage may competing sol), sco, {naopls, ston, hw Engi, ear, at dA ‘adi tame ony some the most prominent, Semis flere the promis of semi, comprehen and coeret stay of Communion phenomean ia Whe; nt hat insane of However we mist scolds fom the ose an usin ambience vows seo, in s0 fas has come t blah ise singe Gace, ntch fr god or fay nr yet done Sis has ipresane stevens crit enough to demand that i ims he taken serine asso es sje Serie of crigues which have cole force in callnging the ‘aly oft momo and paces The ental premise of hs ‘Sue aps atthe soil dense of smite fens are so | ving otc ture ond fnceon the tens cn be sid |in lion. ‘Maiuream sence emphasis secures and codes the expense of fucons nd sociales of semis pry the ompis lterlans of seme tens soil pci, ofthe factor whch prove their motto, throngs snd Sst, thier and sabane er sewes tem apc, ter thn ‘peters and writers or ther params in Semi acta a Sneced and eran s ai of wae nce scl ones2 soci sewuories Ikatuibutes power to meaning, instead of meaning to power. Ie disses \ boundaries within the eld of semiotics, but tcity accep: an impencerable wall cuting off semiosis from society, and semis from social and plieal thought ‘Many colleagues whose views We respect have rejected semiotics self Beenuse of such objections. They see these. defects as. 50 fundamental and so iaterwoven with the Held of study hat they egaed semiotics as beyond redemption, 2 suare and a delusion, We bave ‘Nloped 2 Tes drastic stance. We see it not only 38 possible but a5 ‘essary to attempt a reonstiution of semlotis: one which recognizes the force of many of these erkiques and goes beyand them, incorporating the strengths of existing forms of semiotics, taking the sk that we wll ‘not entzly avoid some of is limitations. This has to be done because the eres, however sound ia thelr own terms, lack a convincing nate practice. Iti semiotics, some kind of semiotics, that must provide this possibilty of anasie practice, forthe many. people in ‘ferent disciplines who deal with iferent problems of social meaning and need ways of desrbing and explaining the processes and structures ‘hough which meaning is constituted. Much of semiosis has aot been ‘conceived with thi kind of use in view, Bt it remains the most obvious site for such an enterprise; and is tha task that this book addresses Ideological complexes and logonomic systems Social semiotics cannot but rst on some general assumptions about focety and meaning. Our own stating point derives from Man’s famous formulation Men ae the pate of tei cones, ht sie ten ahha comin ty eke espe pede {ec nd ofthe cue ncn te op ra fms Gnnigemen (dr oe) a nese estoy he thn ss Scie ar me Sad te beig 9 men he cl epee iat Sey men ander sins spear wpe dma ss ‘haz tie penoncon ss ft mek ae hte ect seth merane osteo een ns fam hee pe eps (Marx and Engels 1970: 42) ~" ‘This formulation emphasizes concrete individuals, acting on each other and the material world, asthe basis and source of Beaute, here translated ab ‘Consciousness, but refering tothe full set of semiotic processes with agents, objets and foresdexved from the material and Socal world and only © be understood ftom that has. Forms of Imtercourse (ceriir: communication, systems of exchange) corespond soein. sesaories 3 tw panicular forms of social organization and are necessary to their very existence Tn contemporary capitalist societies asia mot other soil formations there are inequalities inthe dstibuton of power and ther goods, As 4 result there are divisions inthe social abc between rulers and ruled, ‘exploiters and exploited: such societies exhibit characteristic structures ‘of domination. In order to sustain these structures of domination the ominant groups attempt to represent the word informs that reflect, their own interests, the interests oftheir power. But they aso need to ‘sustain the bonds of solidarity that ae the condition of thet dominance. Dominated groups are not always and everywhere blinded to the ‘operations ofthese structures ~ as they have been portrayed in certain Marist accounts. They in thle turn attempt to fesist the effecs of ‘domination, often succeeding, in countessly many social encounters ‘within soca structures. From this double and contradictory necessity ofthe dominant groups land. the sistant or oppositional. portion. of dominated groups, avises the ambiguous category of ideology, Ideology viewed as fbe ‘onsciousnes represents the World “upside down” and ia iaverted form. Buc also displays an image of the world as it ought co be, as seen feom the vantage point of the dominant, or as iis from the vantage point the dominated group. To capture the contradiction characteristic ‘of ideologial forms, we wil lk of teolgial complexes, functional elated Set of contradictory versions of the world, coerivly imposed ‘by one social group on another on behalf of i own distnesive interests fr subversive offered by another soil group in atempts at resiunce inits own interests. An ideologeal complex exits to sustain relationships ff both power and solidarity, and i represents the socal order a Simulanenusly serving the interests of both dominant and subordinate Its the acual opposiion of imerests which creates the necessity for contradiction wihin the complex. The components af dhe complex wil ‘onset of two kinds of model: reltonal modes (lasifcations of Kinds ‘of social agent, action, objet, tc) ad atonal models (specications ‘factions and behaviours required of, permitted or forbidden to Kinds ‘of scil agen) This indicates the sense in which we wll wse the terms “ideology” and ‘ideological (entero refer ta level of social meaning with ditnctne functions, orientations and content fora sacl class oF troup. We are aware that others use this term in diferent senses, with ‘ual vad. This aiey of usages maybe unfrtuante and confsing, but i cannot easily be overcome, and the term i too important to be renounced by socal semiotics ‘eeological complexes are constructed inorder o constrain behaviour by structuring the versions of realty on which socal acon is based, in parcular ways. Since ideological complexes exploit contradictory‘ socin. stories semiotic forms as 2 means of resoling contradictions in atiudes and ‘behaviours, they cannot faneton successfully on their own. The different halves oftheir contradictions would cancel each other out. We need, therefore, to invoke 4 second level of messages which regulates the Functioning of ideological complexes, a level which is dredy concerned withthe production and recepon of mesning. Each producer ofa message relies on its reepients fri to function 1s intended. This requires these recipients to have knowledge of a set fof messages on another level messages that provide specifi informason Shouthow to read the message. A simple example sje’ statement which might by itself prove offensive tothe recipient The message maker however relies on the fact thatthe reer knows that such 3 Statement, perhaps with other signals of le’ attached, i ‘not 10 be taken seriously. The recipient of course may not have knowledge of that level of message ~ 2 stuaon common in cross-cultural interaction ~ or may choose to reject the message ofthat level ~ as when a member ofan ethnic or racial minority chooses aot owt an offensive statement 88a joke’. The operation of iron is another well-understood case of 2 second-level message regulating the funeson of a message. We will fall tis higher-level control mechanism 2 lognomic system from the {Greek fogs, which means 2 thought or system of thought, and aso the words or dcourse through which the thoughts presented and nomen, 4 contol or ordering mechanism. A logonomi stem a set of rules preserbing the condions for producton and reception of meanings, “which specif who can chim to inate (produce, communicate) of now (feceive, understand) meanings about what topics under what circumstances and with what modalities (how, when, why) Logonomic ‘stems prescribe socal seme behaviours at points of production ‘nd reception, so that we ean distinguish between production regimes (le ong ric) and rein rine ls ons reception ‘Alogononicsjtem is itself a set of messages, pat of an ideological complex but serving to make it unambigunss in practice. Where Structures of domination are unchallenged, a logonomic system serves the dominant by ensuring that acts of semiosisulimaely assure their lominance. Where structures of domination are under challenge, Togonomi systems are likely areas of contestation. The logonomic rules ae specially taught and policed by eanerete social agents (parents, teachers, employes) coering conerete indvidle in specie stations by processes which ae in principle open to study and analysis. They are challenged by socal agents ~ eg, clea, students, employees. LLogonomic systems cannot be iaisile or obscure, or they would not work. They become highly visible in politeness conventions, etguete, Industrial relations, legslation, and so on soeint. seaories 5 LLogonomic rules rst on ast of classictions of people topics and | circumstances which are the result of contestation over long periods, ‘but which ulkimately derive from the ruling ideas of the. dominant ‘roup. The logomic sytem necessarily codes a set of messages which Ass out of 2 process of interaction, and thus indates the staus of ‘elations of dominant and dominated groups. For instance, when Iogonomic system allows a statement offensive to women to be read as “joke, this sgnfes a particular structure of gender relations, ome it ‘which mules are dominant asa group in relation wo females but need to mash their hostity and aggression towards them ‘Thus logonomic systems imply a theory of society, an epistemology and a theory of social movaies. Logonomic systems tke ideological Complexes reflect contradictions and conics inthe social formations ‘They picaly have an overall structure consisting of general rules (expressing the dominance of the dominant) plus alternatives or ‘exceptions (acknowledging though clecumscrbing the opposition of the subordinate). Thus, ideological complexes and logonomic systems ‘are related jn fancson and content, with logonomic systems expressing deological content by controlling one category of behaviour (semis, ‘while the ideological complex aa whole project et of contradictions ‘which Both legitimate and ameliorate the premises of domination, Message, text and discourse In analysing semioic structures and process, social semois draws extensively on terms and concepts from mainstream semiotics. But Semiotics has not arrived ata single agreed set of terms and concepts. Eten if had, socal semioes would need 9 redefine some of them, to reflet its eraphasis on socal action, context and use. Tn what flows, ‘we give an outline of how we wil understand the key tems we use. “The smallest semi form that has concrete existence i the mae “The message has dreconaliy ~ it has a source and goal, 2 socal context and purpose. It is oriented to the semiosic process the social process by which meaning is constructed and exchanged, which takes place in what we will call the sowie ple, "The message is about Something, which supposedly exist ouside ise. Its connected 10 orld to which it refers in some way, and its meaning derives from this representative o mime fncion it performs. We wil eal the plane in which representation occurs the mimetic plane But the eld of semiosis doce not consist simpy of an sccumulaion fof messages, Messages pass in clusters back and forth between Parcpants in a semiotic ac. In the study of verbal communication two words are generally used for this larger unit of semis, “ex6 soci. sensors and ‘discourse’. We will use ‘text in an extended semiotic sense 10 refer wo a structure of messages or message traces which has a sill scribed unity. “Text comes from the Latin word tts, which means ‘something woven together. Discourse” often used forthe same Kind ff object as text but we wil distinguish the two, keeping discourse to {refer tothe social proces in which texts ae embedded, while texts the concrete material cbject produced in dscouse."Text has a diferent ‘rentaon 10 ‘discourse’ Its primary orientation 36 t0 the mimetic plane, where ic has meaning insofar 3b i projets aversion of reali ‘Discourse’ refers more directly tothe semiosi plane “Text is also opposed to another important concep, ‘system ‘Mainstream semiotics his developed the notion ofa system of signs as, an abstract stueture which is realized or insanated in tex. I tends {o teat such systems as state a a socal fact which i not however, implicated in Socal proceses of development or change. We would emphasize in contrast that every system of signs isthe product of processes of semiosis, and document the history ofis own constiution. "Tenn in a system have value by virtue of thee place in that system, At the same time, a sjstem is constanly being reproduced and reconsuted in texts. Otherwise it would cease to ext. So texts are ‘oth the material realization of systems of signs, and abo the sit where chinge continually takes place, “This dialectic between text and sytem always occurs in specific seriosi ats, that in discourse. Discourse in this sense the ste ‘where socal forms of organization engage with systems of signs inthe Prenton of texts, thus reproducing or changing theses of meanings 8nd values which make up culture. So for instance the institution of medicine defines a speciic set of meanings which are constantly involved in the social processes which ae appropriate to that inet, and engaged in by significant clases of partcpant, such a6 paint, Surgeon, researcher and soon. In these interactions and the texts that they produce, the set of meanings is constantly deployed, and in being deployed is at rsk of disrupson. For social semiotics, the two tems “text and discourse’ represent complementary perspectives on the same level of phenomenon. But although discourse is emphatically a social ‘ategory this does not mean that text and message are socal terms. Both tere and message signify the specific social relationships at the moment oftheir production ot reproduction, Genre, conformity and resistance In onder to trae the relaonship of micro to macro structures we need ‘some mediating categories, Logononic systems have rales tht constrain soci, ststories 7 the general forms of tx and discourse. Such stem offen operate by Specting gee of texts (opi foms of text which fink nds of oduer, consumer, tape, medium, manner an occasion). These ont the behavior of proces of sch tes, and the expectations So potental consumers, Genrerles ate excaparyintances of Iogonomie stems, anda 2 major vide for thelr operon and transmission. Like the category of tet, genres re socially asrbed ‘assiicebons of seme form, (Genes only est insofar 8 social group declares and enforces the mle hat const them. For instance, there ae clear ales which ‘egal the lnteracsons among pardpans that recalled commie: inecng. That fy + pact Kind of soll occasion I esabished, Fecogized and named by scl group, and prices are delineated ‘hich gone the scons of parpan on seh oceans, The tes ‘ih re formed in the process fa conmitee meeting hercfore ve 1 orm which codes the sto practes, relatos of parcpan, tr speculaas and purposes. The form of sch tex whether sll tramerpt) or 4 mines ofthe meeting’ ~ themsehes become ‘ecognsed a 'genre' an become potent sa semiobe eter. Other instances come eal to ind nese, lecture, eure ale, chat tone Each sch gene cole paricu rclaonships among 28 oF focal papants. The rl stn a aue are dearer to seein some JnwancenCaeriew) tan in ors (novel, but are no les operative for tha ‘The ‘Rive ofthe Nove, 0 ale hstory tha acs 4 Set of hitoaly specie rations that inves the postion of lass, definitions (and discourses) of gender, the sate of techno, Iksre and edradon, cs-basednodons of the fay, and 30 on ‘The history ofthe gene of “nove since fs rie equal aces shits in thee relatos, he appearance a sent factors of new discourses nd of she in extent dicoures. Genre therefore represent one Seno category tht codes te ees of soi chang, of Scal serrate An excessive concenzaton on nonmatve stems ogonomie sts gente, clog) contains an nb ditordon and refresh ews Of ther dominance. These stems ely constun the betuviour and elf of the non dominant in so fr they have been efectvely Frnposed ant have nt been elev rested. Aeon to the Stal tf semint procese reveal comes instances of contestation, where Smalle-ese shila power ‘hve sgn ffec, lesing 10 ‘odiicaton nthe srucues of domination, at mes tracing the sucess Cf dominated groups ines the sucesso the dominant This proces 5 well deserted in Grane’ work on hegemonic soucturs and thet csublishent, Process of stugle and restance are themsces eisne apes of soc formations, and act every letel of semiove8 soctat sesuomies systems, At the micro level, powers put to the test in every exchange, fd the lgonomie system tpl second of this by clsifing Inge areas of semioss as pate’, wo be tested 38 beyond the reach af the “publica. ‘The Wealogcl comple smal stempts to pre-empe opposition by incopoating contradictory images imo i Evercve forms, even s, they continue to ext thet, silently declaring the limis of dominant power. So the meanings and the interests of ‘hth dominant and non-domsane ac together in proprio that re not predetermined, to constitute the forms and posses of meaning at eer level, We do not assume tht restance i alas sucess arroten: tt nor don ati uted a any hr fo ‘eaning seem to do, that resistance is alway efforiesl incorporated tnd rendered nonsgnfcane ” om Social semiotics and the analysis of texts We will iustrte this base acount of social semioes by anassing a billboard advertisement for Marlboro cigars, to which the VUGALP soup (Bilboard Using Grafiists Against Unhealthy Promotions) has ‘alded some amendments (plate 11) We wil begin our description with an account of the logon system, that the set of socal mesiages which govern the normal Production and reception of this text. By staring with the semiosie plane, with the conditions surounding the predton ofthis txt, we ‘wish to show tha soil semoie account cannot proceed with a nane Text-contet dichotomy, but rather, that context has to be theorized and understood as another set of txts soci sewories| 9 ‘The orginal advertisement i atest on a large sae, displayed on a bilboard, which is iself mounted on «brick wall in's public space ‘This indicates one set of loponomie rules immediately: the right 1 erecta billboard ofthis size is explicitly controlled by Toeal government Taws, and there ae agencies which contol the appearance of messages in public’ space such a this, By its appearance here the text receives too differen kinds ofnstttionallepmation. Here we have one sia feterminant of this genre: local coun by-aws or dikretionary powers fan determin both whether a text may appear here and what kindof teat may appear. Acces tothe space is farther regulated by ar agency which hires the space 1 adverters. From a spectatr/vewer's point Uf view this hae significant effects for reception, even sf these go Seemingly unnoticed by the reader. The text has ap insiuionlzed legitimacy and authori, Tis effet can realy be teste by imagining tote texts appearing there: pethaps a message encouraping the use of hetuin of advocating the release of prisoner alleged to have been framed by the police. The appearance of such 2 teat in tht place ‘would seem shocking "The text sell is-of a scale and kind which implies the use of significant material resources. ‘The maby of sch resources i ‘understod by a reader toe a precondition ofthe production of such text and that gives the text» parila status, and places readers in & particular postion. In this instance, the tat sone of a series of texts Suhich appeared as part of a “campaign so that readers/sewers Were Tkely to have seen other texts of avery simlar kind in a cinema, or an their television, or in 2 magazine. "These are indications of some aspects of the logonomic systems hich enter into the production, appearance and reception of this ext "They project a paricular eeation of producer and consume for the test Readers/siwersare placed ina parcular way they ate participants, ‘but cannot parcpate in any public act of meaning-making. ‘That pssibiiy i expressly ruled out there are avs against “interference” ‘sth ilboards. They ca only Tok, rea, and respond prea. Because tf the generic structare of this text they are addressed as (poten) Consumers I readers permit themselves to be constructed as consumers, then this gives them a kind of power. So as readers they ae powerless, as consumers they ate powerful, hough that power is inthe gift of the Imakers of the tex. This question of the placing/eonsruction of the reader/consumer brings us to the ideologial structure of the mimetic conten. The original picture shows a silhouetted horseman and a large packet of cigarettes, The words say "New. Mild, And Marfboro’ The Fall stops are important. ‘These are not merely words, of ellipical sentences: these are ‘slatements As readers We ate meant to accept that each statement contains vast areas of significance, even i we have10 soci, srsuories to read that oto each statement. So we ate expected to perform a Signlican amount of semiotic work, and yet we are abo treated as Fears who are slrealy member of he group tht throughly award wrth the sigicance of these statements, Hence the text operates Through a enon around the poton of the viewr/endr in race reading/engagement sith 2 text whose meaings ar aad ete fami. Ths i one aepect or eet of the poston inherent in ioloicalcomplenes. I we pesform he veaing we wil be forced to emp to reace' path aealy contd in previous adering tent, where “New ian eset quality morn man bai 4 requirement they are tld to) make of theme, of others, ano all objects. But"New ao stands in tension wth the nose and sel= Conscious romantcied image of the Coby, who fey tach lt Unless he isthe ‘mew urban man who golly a home inthe twbun outdoors ‘MU stands in contraiion wih the ough masclny pertyed by the man and hs way of ie, But is appearance here also Poin to suppresson/negnion of other scours. of courses round heh (he ant-smoking campaig, but abo discourses around fender, perhaps constuced as a Tespons to fenistcrigues of Mata nodes af the masculine, 50 that iM can come 10 Sie the "new Lind of mae toughness impor here inst that reading psitons, and reas ae gendered The males of ht text may have intended, quite debe, to appeal to feminine fudience hee, an audience which is waonaly hug ohare afinty Yih vles such bare indicted by il rather han by ough Th this conte iti relevant tote that in Aus young omen const the fastest growing sement of he carte athe. Some oppoiions of thi sdclogcal comple are thereby absence women ae absent, and yet they are tude? at ony by te eet x ul’ but abo by an sumption tha a east cern female renders) viewers wil ents’ with the Iypotetl perner of thi new ol Fashioned, mild, tough mule. The conboy fx worker who is here shown as having no Bos, a being his ovn boss) and noon ofthe lunfeered individual, alone “ng orn ature forms potent “ppositon and contradiction withthe stractre of the Ines of eo the iewers/eaders ofthe tet “These, then, are some estores of the Meologcl complex hat const het icles how spec of que nme aacet fn contingent soil stares and pracics, many in the fm af Gere af) tex, have ther elect inthe fomaton of this text the barely covert response to texts ofthe anti-smoking campaign, and feminist deconstucsns of tational versione ef nase, the pressure ofthe, nar tex, by oer promoters ofthe same ped, Sinaled by the appearance of ‘New. and "Mrford. Above als of soci, seaorics n ‘ours, there isthe nes by the producers of his commodity to main ‘on if possible, improve ther market share, thei profits, The struct of texte i all aspects bas an indiator of complexes of social Factors at work ‘On to this text intrudes one particular reading, a reading which carefully exploits some ofthe contaditons inthe ideological complex ‘ofthis ex the teading/ rewriting performed by BLGALP. That reading?” feoriting resists the meanings ofboth the ideological complex, andthe Togonomic system Where the later posiions the plable,aequiescent reader in + passive role in the act of communication, the UGAUP feading aricks that system in radial fashion. An individual could ‘deface this adverisement in exacly the same way in a magazine; a6 private att would cause no ripple. By “defacing” a bilboard the wuGa Ur readers/authors are inserting themes into a forbidden semiotic role, as communicators of subversive meanings presented public, in ble space. ‘They are challenging the right of the company, and implicily the right of the state as delegated to local authory, 10 ‘control authorship and coatent of “public texts. In doing so they are~ ‘periting on yet another contradiction, nal that ofthe state which insists on the publicaion of a healt warming on every packet of ‘igaretes, which contols or prohibits adversing of tobacco in certain media, and which depends revenue generated from tobacco tats, At the ideological level, the BUGALP authors exploit some of the contractions we have alteady mentoned. ‘The complex of meanings ‘round masculniy/femininity and health caried in "Mild is negated by the change to "Vile" The implied unity of rider and horse (one pet ofthe unity of human nature) is undermined: the horse is given ‘words which suggest a feminist ergue ofthis consrution of maleness, tnd which also undercuts any possiblity of 2 female identification with this Kind. of man. That iy the reweting writes in aspects of the Suppressed discourses, writes in atleast the echo ofa female voice “fst asthe elect ofthe orginal adversement depended on the combined effets of ideologiel and logonomic messages, so. this ‘challenge derives its potency from both levels) By both exposing and Subvetting a logenomc rule it co-ops those who are normaly passively ‘constrained by such rules, and the release of pleasure co-opt them fgunct such adverdsing. Conversely, those who align themselves with the right of the tte to control meanings might reject the message a “cul, in poor taste’, even if they disapprove of smoking. Finally, we need to consider the level of discourse, understood a5 the ongoing flow of semiosi. The orginal advertisement as 2 text fined meaning fom an intertexusl relationship with other tes, Including TV advertisements which incladed a fuller arate, as well fs a-mubiude of ter texts, authored both by Matfboro (or ts2 soctat srssorics auverising agency) and others. The comments by BUGAL® could have ‘ocurred in the flow of discourse of innumerable private reader ‘which the meanings ofthe billboard could be negotiated and assim fe contested, in 2 continuous ehain of acts of discourse, In tat case the meanings of the text would have been grealy changed in the proces, and an analysis of it would have been very misleading a8 10 fs overll-efectviy. ‘The avcavr addons constate a specifically dali text, im which one reading ofthe orginal text is reclaimed and incorporated imo the text iselt However, even after this interaction the flow of discourses will sil connie, sisting the new txt in relation to other agents of discourse and thet interests. The notion of text needs to be retained and contrasted tothe notion of discourse as proces, precisely because a text isso Tmited and partial an objet of anass, Texts only a trace of discourses, frozen and preserved, more ‘or fess reliable or misleading. Yet discourse disappears too rapidly, Surrounding Mow of texts, Anais nee to beable to take account of both. In making oppositional readings visible, this particular text isnot @ ‘peal one. Instead of eliding oppeision and suppressing the possibly ‘of counter-readiags (asthe orginal adverdsement did) the text brings these to the surface, so that their presence cannot be ignored. In lusting the processes involved in any reading, the text shows what is entirely pea, but pcally invisible. Social semiotics cannot restrict lis anaysis to tes with commentaries by BvGat or similar groups ‘What it does need 1 do isto acknowledge the importance of the ow of discourse in constructing meanings around texts, and find ways of ‘uring this proces itself into kindof text. Meaning is always negotiated in the semintic process, never simply imposed inexorably fram above bbyan omnipotent author through an absolute code. Traditional vemos likes to assume thatthe relevant meanings are fren and fixed inthe teat isl to be etracted and decoded bythe analyst by reference 10 8 coding stem that is impersonal and neutral, and universal for wets (Of the code. Socal semiotics cannot assume tht texts proce exacty the meanings and effets thar their authors hoe for: its precisely the Ssrageles and their uncertain automes that must be studi athe fv, of socal action, and thee eflees inthe production of meaning. 2 The Founding Fathers Revisited In this took we ofr a specie conspion of what semis can and bug 0 be. Yet lnevably our version of sents is poisoned in feet to oer Kin of semi, and we have Gr exes on the work of oer foro own porpores. Soc semi sb we propore itis not an autonomous projet. thas developed tof an intesve vie reaing of eter work fom parte standpin, eecing Some pars incorporating orden or essing other pars int theory ich sim to be coherent atl poner ina wn fg, tbe jaded not for is tonly or ervtveness bt fori aii and eflnese wo those wih nr orientation. So in this caper we Seth ot in broad terme where we snd and pea ered reading ‘some of the funding fathers snd funding concep of modem Semis rom iis pin of ew Tike any sci sty seoocs has a pst which acts on ts present and it fture, and which i alo consucted in hires which mae the comingencies of the past and. preset sceminevible and tchaengeile. We want to contest one parca version of Kstry ‘wich underpins + speife and Tnitngconcepion of what semiotics Sevan iy and should be and do, We wil fer oth he dominant Talon without imphing either that al ofa pice or condauous wrth ell ay exced Back to chm pase What me want to So Ther break withthe past Gi that were possible) nor trent 3 nd approrate is potency Instead we wil ry to revere to Ht some Fess tat hve been foreclosed, emphasing some fissures and enadcons that were premarrely and icy rested. We bane si dnl sin a at uth Hecade ey ed taal semiotic bot that is an oxesimpiiation. In fracce the ‘radon’ of tana semiotics not monolithic even Tr ageed bay of tories and concept an by ha means fepuites the Socal mension unequivocal ia coming to tems ‘with 502 oct. sensors saverxing agency) and others. The comments by HuGALP cou have ‘ocurred in the Mow of discourse of innumerable private reader, in ‘hich the meanings ofthe billboard could be negotiated and assimilted ‘br contested, int continuous chain of acts of scours. In that case the meanings of the text would have been grealy changed in the proces, and an analysis of i would have been very misleading 2810 fs overall eflecviy. The WUGALr additions constute a specially tlalogc text tn whith one reading ofthe orginal tex is recimed and incorporated int the txt ibe, However, even after this interaction the flow of discourses will sill coming, stuating the mew text in ‘elation to other agents of discourse and ther interes, The notion of text neds to be retained and contrasted tothe notin of discourse as proces, precisely because a text isso limited and partial an object of nabs, Tent only a race of discourses, frozen and preserved, more for less reliable or misleading. Yet discourse disappears too rapids, Surrounding a flow of text. Analisis needs ro be able co take account ‘of bath In making oppositional readings visible, this particular tet isnot a ‘opel one Instead of elding oppesiion and suppressing the posblity tr counerreadings (the orginal advertisement di) the text brings these to the suffice, 30 that their presence cannot be ignored, In lstrating the processes invalved in any reading, the text shows what js entirely pct, but ppically invisible. Social semiotics cannot restrict, its analysis fo texte with commentaries by DUGALP or similar groups. ‘What i does need todo isto acknowledge the importance of the flow of iscoure in constructing meanings around tex, and find ways of {turing this process tel into hinds of text. Meanings always negotiated in the semiote proces, never simply imposed inexorably from aboxe ‘bya omnipotent author through an absolute code, Traional semiotics, Testo assume thatthe relevant meanings are fazen and ied in the teat isl to be extracted and decoded hy the analyst by reference to ' coding system that i inpersonal and neutral and universal for wsers forthe code, Socal semioes cannot assume that texts produce exaly the meanings and effects that ther authors hope fori is precisely the Srugpes and their uncertain outcomes that must be stud atthe level, ff socal action, and thir eflees inthe production of meaning. 2 ‘The Founding Fathers Revisited In is book we ler a specie conception of what semis ean and Ugh beet mevtaly ur version of semiotics postoned i Stoner Kn of senses, and we have drawn extensively 08 Bt rte for our own purposes. Soc semis 5 we pope SANGER Miomoun procs hos developed out of an intense Nise eating of ere wo rm paralar Sandon, ecg Se Se ncrerng ordering or tmlring ther Pars 0 = Broa Ahi am to be sobre and omer in its om ht tobe oor" arts neyo deratneness but fr iva and ‘etfnce tone with sar onto. S in hs eater me steciten intend tems ere we std and pea ciel reading SRGAT te ounding thc snd founding ences of mers Sto from hs point few Tig any svi ci senocs has pst whic as ons preset and ia foe and wich avo contacted im istreswhieh ake Be Sauneices of the pat and resent sem invible and ce aSTeNEEe We want w cnet one pal version of ity Wiss cndcrins a spesiteand ting conception of what semioics TOSSES aul be nd do, We wl refer hs 2 the diane din stow mphng eer har all fa piece or coninoss Sama reseed Bock to cf pt What ne want 0d TEAC tea hte ps tae were pose) por rei meanest te pteng Intend we wil ty Fest 0H sme Pei ae been feclne, emphasing some sures and resem that were prmarrey andy roofed, We hve Sed ta smi eh cade ny cd neal semi bot that ian orersinpietion. In FESS we ‘enon’ of takin seins not mole o = Te ly of tore and concep nd ty no means reps Be Toca dimesion tncyuiocay in coin to terme ih 304 “Tae FOUNDING FATHERS REVISITED amorphous and shifing an enty, we wil not uy to offer a dy survey, ‘which would be supertcial and tendentous at best. Instead, we wil look cricaly at the work of some key figures who were product their ideas a a crucial stage in the formation ofthe semiotics project ‘One figure we cannot nore in such an approach is Ferdinand de Saussure, who in all accounts of semiotics i named af 4 founding father ofthe discipline: Sometines his name is bracketed with that of C.S. Peirce, bu his thought ws undoubtedly far mor influential. As professor of general ingustes at Geneva Univers, with pupils Iter ‘ccupying chats in prestigious sniversites in Europe, he was ideally placed to exert influence, een posthumously. His legacy shaped modern Structural Hnguises as well ab structural semiotics, Pele, on the ‘other hand, produced his ideas from the peripheries of the American academic system inthe late nineteenth century, and some of bis early disciples were too eminent in thei own right fel they had to be faith to his thought. Some accounts of semiotics sugget that there re wo traditions stemming from these two founding fathers: continental Semiotics (or semialog), raonai, structural form deriving from ‘Saussure, and American semiotics, more behaviourist and posts and deriving fom Peirce But though American semiotics does have las characteristic forms, the seeming deference to Peirce isnt decisne factor in it. Peirce’ observations on semiotic, scared through his collected works (1940-65), are potently far more sublle and uid than the mechanistic theories af those (ike Morris 1971) who elim 10 follow him. There is not 2 Peircean counter-tation. with solid achievements planted in American sol, ready to confont the European Semiology of Saussure. But theres Peice’s own work, unsstematic ‘ut fl of sharp and illuminating observations on semiois and though, sill waiting tobe propery assimuated into general semiotic theory Peirce was a philosopher, in so far as he was an academic sl Philosophy, at tr stage in the instttonlization of knowledge, had 4 wide scope, adessing itself w genera problems of language and thinking. Perce acually used he term “semiotic other philosophers reflected productively on problems of language and meaning without invoking the term. Thinkers like Husserl, in she phenomenological tradition, and Witgenstein were developing semiotic notions which Ihave largely remained ouside the semiotic tradion. ‘These of couse Ihave not been without their influence and ther followers, but that influence was labelled philosophy’ Linguistics subsequent did without either semiotics ora phlosophy of language, whe Inguistic philosophy, ‘ut off fom a broader range of semiotic phenomena, wis reduced to endless analysis of the language of philosophy as-is proper subject wo other thinkers must be included even i so ited an inventory of Younding fathers. One is Freud. Although he produced fis ideas "ve POUNDING PATIERS REUSED 1s from a8 marginal a postion as Perc, there is no question of the tagnitade of his general influence today. Since Lacan's advocacy (0977) his sta asa prot-semiccan has been recognized, although Lacan's versions of both Freud and semiotics are not deine oF chavs, and the place of Freud's thought ina general semiotics is far fom seded, Even more important, inthe reconstiution of semiotics that we emisage, i the work of Voloshinov and the sthool of Baki, Voloshino’s major work (1973), produced in Russia in the 1920s, offered contemporary eriique of Saussure that has only receny thu to have effec inthe West and to be recognized asa potentially decisine theoretical nterention. Volosinov drew hesiy on Marxism, ‘tradiion ‘which was effectively excluded in West European and “American theories of language inthe 1930s. But he and others in that {group were ako silenced for decades by Stalinism. The rediscovery of Noloshinow in effect makes a contemporary of Saussure a8 vel, ging new life othe issues he set in motion, providing a powerful impetus fd orientation fo new frm of semiots. Saussure’s rubbish bin Sussure’s Coume in Goneral Ling isa Bist glance a suprising toto hive preated semi. Stusur’s epic references (0 "Smilogy’ amount three pages. Most of his book dawson ery narrow range of semiotic phenomena, The examples come msl from his fel of speci competence, the history of changes in sound tthe Indo-European group of languages ‘Thi contaicon i at the cente Of the problema legacy of Sasrre. On the one hand he projected ST dscipine withthe widest pene scope, wile onthe other he lid doa 8 of wces wich mith borage ito, dtorming linguistics and preventing the coming of semis for decades "We can sce cis contradiction in many aspects of Sassure’s work ‘He nas tained inthe precise 4nd shoarlytaon of comparative ‘hilly, whose primary seal was the historical reconstruction of the Indo-European troup of languages, but hat wacom had tly rn fut of feasle take, Daly and Sechehase, editors of the Coe, {Eecrted his motes a follows: ‘We have aten heard Ferdinand de ‘Stessure lament the dear of principles and. methods that marked lngusdcs during his developmental period. Throughost Bis tie, he stuborlycondnued to starch out the avs hat would ie dection tos thought amid the car’ (974s). I the Case Saussure Set himself he tsk of consatings new and broader eld of stud, ad so he vised» snple, clear and comprehensive map, in terms of hich the lose, arrow work be found congenial could proceed again Shh the cera be so dsied. His bale satgy wat to project 46 {THE FOUNDING FATHERS REVISITED larg, undifferentiated field, then divide & up by successive sharp dichotomies; and then proceed to eliminate one half ofeach dichotomy. ‘The result was a Se of boundaries, cach regarded as absolute, and successive narrowing of linguistics and semiotics. What needs to be Challenged ate the exclusions enforced by those boundaries the original Scope of these cms must be reexamined, in the coming to terms vith Saussure which semiotics needs even today. The Saussutean Scalpel cut deep, and his need for limits has fod echoes in many thers who have setup sterile Barer in linguists and in many oer elds of cultural tudes is famous pairs of categories are often discussed in isolation, but they must be understood both as part of a rigorous scheme, and 3s successive stages in a progression through that schetne, We will summarize thi progression in our summary of his thought, In the search fora pure object of study, he fst made a distinction between ‘hat which was internal to language, and that which was external to it although essential to an interest language phenomena: ethnology, politcal and social history, history of iasttions, geography. Hang Posted this fist division, he proposed to exchide “external linguistics = even though he also insisted elsewhere Mat lnguage i irreducibly a ‘social fact. The cass of objects that was left he put rgether, and he proposed it as larger objet of study, that of sign systems general ‘That study he named “semiology’, and. prophesied its existence in advance, while notin fact studying ic himsel ‘Verbal language as such (Langage) he designated as one such sign ‘stem. This object he then categorized into two: langue (the abstract ‘stem of rules underlying speech) and pore Quman speech tray “words, conceived of a5 an intinsialy unordered moras, an infinite and arbivary combination of the elements of langue by individual speakers. He discarded porte as an impossible objet for systematic study. Langue Was then divided into «wo: the archon the study of stages of language (he system 2s it ests at any one time, for 3 particular language communis) and the duchy, the stad of changes {the system over time. Most of Sausute’s lifetime had. been spent on diachronic studies, but he categorized these as defeating systematization. Diachronie chang, for him, was essentially piecemeal tnd irvaonal. Hl thes described synchronic langage phenomena oa fo ates: the plane of combination and the plane of selection, which he called the associative plane (Hieimsley 1953 later renamed these ‘the symtagmatic and the paradigmatic planes respects.) Synchrone linguists deals with sigs which have a valu, a pce in a system or surcture, sytagmatic or paradigmatic, that i, a signfcaton; and 2 relation of relerece, etisting ouside language. For reasons that fre consistent with the rest ofthe scheme, he opted for considerations ‘HE POUNDING WATERS nevstrED "7 of value (relations in @ system) signification rather than reference. Signs themselves havea double form, consisting of signs (carriers ‘of meaning) and signified, the concept or meaning. Saussure did not ‘entirely neglect consideration of signed, but his main intrest was ‘with signers The signifier, to, has a double form, made up of a material entty (eg, a svoke of the pen, 2 physical sound) and an Image ofthat eniy, which sa mental event Characterscally Saussure relegated the study ofthe material sgn to discipline ouside linguistic. “The fll scheme, then, looks like this a vine onl a eee ‘The untnng in thi sche indents the coments of Sousue’s rsh bin, what he chose to eet or seed mize So inporan ae the things that heeded tht rs tempi se 1 tat uel phenomenon, the pron who aly mong. On tat ‘eaoning if Shasure recs sneing mt be import Bt at tf courses tn single Tis aco exson at of represen, aes seem the rove The aan he ani Sf assem: Thar repesed is nary ener, ements ‘thntter chmgen or crue orJteber chuage. So he aftred the Socal oe he india, broly aan abe inmobized veron of he soa oder, poten threatened by scons of ianere thddas Ath eel of language, howe he sie manly words or pees; not agers of house "Tis cou be seen 8 er tan wit the soca in wich words cx Bt dee level tha ince Bess he Sane Sere tony with tha which can Be Axe and theorem, een $F the prices sce only cho in thee and dscure hat vs Cd he domain of nies or seo arn scien tise i te inece material word oobecw and een The Senin of tis emp to sane the wold of process revel i ict ceopaton of hese fre, ve i they spe fn i they nly neon18 THe FOUNDING PaTntERS arise Using Saussure as an antguie, we can invert his prohibitions and rewrite them as basc premises for an alteratvesemiotis (an erate ‘which simpli in his work}. This alkemative semiotics wil incorporate the study of atleast the flloning components 1 Cale, sce snd pits a niet semiotics 2 Other semiouc systems alongside veri language 3 Paris the at of speaking an once signing practices oer ce 4 Diacron, tine, str, proccess change 5 The procese of sgcaton, the transactions bamcen signing tems and stores of reference 6 Strurres ofthe setos 7 The material oatre of Ss. Society and the sign Yoloshino,srng in 1929, turned Saussue’s doctrines on their head in essentially the same terms as we do above, His -eigue has an exemplary Iuidiy, and still repays close atenion. He labelled the Saussurean tradition as ‘abstract objetivsm’, and he diagnosed its ‘ental mistake, is pron pad, a follows: ‘Abstract objeeism, by taking che stem of language and regatding it asthe ene crus of linguistic phenomena rejected the speech act ~ the utterance ~ as Something individual... [But] The wternce a sca phonena ‘This sees the separation of lange and por and the rejection of parle 4 too individual 10 be an object of theory, as the decive error in Saussure’ thought. Voloshino also reconstituted the unity of semiotic phenomena, agunst Saussute's fatal dichotomies, in three propostions Ssserting the material and social dimensions ay essential to semiotic anal 1 Aotogy may ao be divorced fom the material realy of te sin 2 Signs may not be doreed tum the conerete fons cel ircourse (ein tat the sgn part of egies inrcorse, and como cis as sch ouside 1) {3 Communion and the forms of cammunicion may wot be dnorced From the matral bas ‘as7s: 21) ‘Volshinov’s own position on the social determination of signs is aot swthout problems of the relation of individual and calletivestrctures! “The form of signs is conditioned above all bythe socal organization of the participants involed and also by the immediate conditions of their ineracdon’ (1973-21), Tie ‘ako inks the general. social {TE FOUNDING FATHERS REUSED 19 ‘organization and the immediate conditions of interaction, though it ‘makes light ofthe problems socal semiotics must face in accounting for the constraints and determinations acting on participants in a semiotic act. Voloshinor’s work foregrounds the speech act as an tachange between individuals whose consciousness already socially fomstructed. Tt emphasizes the plane of production as decisive for Semiosc analysis. His formulation, however, leaves uncplored the | ENTS of elatonshis between speech roles and socal relationships in 2 dass society, the complex structures of the lognomic systems at ‘arious levels. Moreover, general semiotic theory musty 10 theorize ‘he fll range of semiose a, ncuding writing at, Hm andthe mass redia, where the relationships beeween parcpants are more complex and absuact than ithe cave wih face-to-face conversational exchange, Burt this sony to say that Voloshinow has let important tas for sce semiotics to explore In that exploration, the two formulations ‘socal ngznization of participant’ and ‘immediate condiians of interaction’ Seem to us as good as any currently available. ‘Voloshinov makes a close link berween semioscs and he study of| ideology. “Without signs there is no ideology. Evething ideological possesses semiotic value’ (1973:9). He uses the word “ideology” here ina specific sense which ve will examine later. The point to sess here i that for him, neither ideology nor language are monolithic ‘phenomens imposing thee iresisble nity on a helpless society. On the contrary, society for him is characterized hy struggle and conflict, and constantly renegotiated relations, and semioss reflects this process in is typical forms. Here his concept of the “accent ¥e useful. An sccent i particular inlecon which gives 2 eiflerent social meaning to an appareny common set of signs, just 28 happens with various ‘accents of speech which matk class and regional ideniy. Ae well a= this, for Voloshinov they affect the force and meaning of signs, by ‘connecting them with diferent life experiences and values. He es language ssteme as typically "mulsaccenua?, wih a seemingly common ‘ode reacted by diferent lass o group postions. From ths perspective ir becomes impossible to see an kdeology 3b unitary et of meanings ‘or texts, imposed rom above in an absolute take-ior-leave-it kind of ‘way. For Saussure, language had tobe a total eollecive phenomenon, for it would be asocial and incomprehensible. For Volosinov the processes of struggle, negotiation and creation and resolution of tlfferences are both social and comprehensible, and indeed are at the ‘centre of semiatieenquiy ‘We believe that as an outine,Voloshinow’s sketch ofthe basis fora socal semiotics is essenally sound. ‘The task that remains isto build fon this basis, and coniont the dificult of implementing the programme. But it wort poining out moments in the Western20 “Tie POUNDING FATHERS REMISITED European tradition which could have led in this kind of dveetion. CS Peirce, for instance, had a dalogic conception of language and sjgns. "Every thought is sign’, he declared (3.470); “Al chinking is ‘slope in form. Your self of ome instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent” (6.338). Unlike Voloshinoy, he has Internalized the transaction tha constitutes thought, presenting it 8a fact of personal psychology without explicit rots inthe soil process, and this isan important weakness in Peirce’ theory. But others, tis essentially the same Lind of account of thinking processes as was developed later by the Russian psychologist Vjgosky (1962), himself influenced by Voloshinov and the Babin group. Peirce also stressed process inthe study of sgn. ‘Semiotc’for him vs the doctrine of the essential ature and fundamental varieties of semiosis! (5.488). And semiosis here is process, the acton of = Sign’, nota language structure or «code “By semiosis I mean an action, an influence, which is or invltes, 2 co-operation of three subjects, such a a sign, its object and its interpret, his relative inluence rot being in any way resotable into acons beeween pais’. 484). Exaciy what Pee meant by “interpreta isnot clear, and his theony has been disputed. Bu its clear that semiosis involves 2 wansaction, 2 process linking objet, sign, and “interpreta Inerpretans a further ideas linked toa sign. “The interpretant of proposiion i Is predicate’ (3.473). ‘The process of generation of interpretants is ‘Seemingly limitless an inte semioss, rather lke the process of free ‘sociation. But Peirce insists on two limits to this freedom and infnitude." ‘The relation between ‘sign’ and “inerpretant is stil controled by the relaons with the object, with material existence, And the endless fx of interpretants is also controlled by what e called “habis’ (4536), cutualy specie rales of thought and inference that correspond to what we have called logonomic systems. So, unlike Saussure, Pezce sees meaning ab intensely a process, not quality ‘of sins or test, and he sees lace for both the material determinations bfimeaning, and general socal cultural constraints on individual thought, Even Saussure should not be seen as uneguiocally opposed to a socal basis for semiois. In fact his work shows a deep division on precisely this tpi contradiction that rus throughout his work, For Instance he list three ins that determine the scope of linguists: 1 To decree rac the hs al nenale ageges 2 determine the Fre ha re ara wok al ges, and to deduce he grcral lows to whi al specie sol phenomena can te seduced 5 To'dlnt nd eine et. ome {TE FOUNDING FATHERS RESTED a Aims (1) and (2) foreground the study of historical and social forces fan language; aim (3) then attempts to cut linguistics off fom semiotics, ‘and ffom socal and historical explanation. This set of sims docs not Show a hostility to this wider scope forthe subject so mich as. profound ambivalence towards that projec. Saussure did notin fact dismiss what he called ‘external inguistics I believe hat che study of ‘external linguistic phenomena is mos full butt say that me cannot “understand the Satpal linguistic onganim without studying external ‘Phenomena is wrong”. 22). This statement explicitly recognizes the Talue and importance of external nguistes wtle making s plea for iernal linguistics as well Sausure has been invoked Oy later Ssemiotcians to justify» clear rejection of ‘external Hnguistis” in the ‘name ofan absret, autonomous internal nguses, This i ot entirely fair him, although he was certainly not unambialent about the issue, How signs work Saussure's confusion about she relations between semioss and society affected some of his most influential pronouncemens, even where that problem does not seem at isue. One example i his doctrine thatthe Tingle sin is arbira: by which he meant tac (in verbal languages atleast) there is no necessary or natural” connection between a signified Aandi signer (the words horse’, gas (Latin and hippo (Grech) All refer to the same species of anima, There could therefore be no natural connection beeen the concept of horsenes’ and any ofthese ‘words (and many others in ater languages). Clery this obseration makes good sense, sofa as it goes. However, Saussure’ treatment of this topic ataches a surprising degree of importance toi He declared ito De ‘the fist principle of language signs’ no less. ‘This has proved a very iauental and damaging overstatement. La practice, at some ifentl semiotics have argutd snot absolutely nd invariably tue even ofthe sound of word (, Lew-Stauee 1963, Inkobson and Waugh 1979, and see below pp. 88-91). It certain is ‘ot true of all signs in verbal language: Saunsure himself recognized that syntactic patterns, for instance, are often what he called “motiated’, that is, connected in some rational, ‘natural’ way eo thee meaning. Fot example, the subject of a sentence in English comes fist whichis ‘motated sigiier of is importance, Outside verbal lngusge, so many imporan lasses of signs so obviously have some rationale (as Saussure himself recognized) that it becomes dificult to justify this doctrine as universal doctrine in semiotics. Petce had a more help casifction fof signs. He had tree major types som (based on identity of likeness! ‘eg, road sigs), inde (based on contiguity or caus: eg smoke a2 “Tie POUNDING PATHERS REVISITED 8 Sign offre), and yd (a merely conventional link, sin Saussure’ “arbitrary sign). The fst wo ofthese types ae ‘moviated in Saussure’ terms. Looking at he fll ange of sign types it seems incontrovertible {hat there is continuum in signs, from more to Tess ‘arbitra’ oF “rmoviveed. A dogmatic assertion that signs are all and equally ‘aria ‘8 unjustifiable and unhelpful for general semiotics. Even Saussure’ terms ‘arbitrary’ and ‘ntiated’ have misleading implications, We wll ‘he instead the term transparent 1 indicate sigilir whose connection with signified can be seen cally by a use, whether producer oF Feceiver, withthe orientation always imporant. So the same sign could be tanspareat wo 2 producer and not to a reciver, or vice versa. We ‘sill cll the opposite quality ‘opaque’, again relative to specific agents But this alternative proposal doesnot explain why Saussure felt i necessary to insist om aritrarinese in the ist pce. Paradoxically, hs motive nas his sense. of the overwhelming power of society in determining verbal semiotic systems. The logic of that position is 38 Fallows. Applying his habitual dichowomous ways of thinking to the relation between signifers and signifeds, he saw two possbiles. Either there is natural connection between sigufers and signified, based on their physical nature, or there is mot His interest a. we mentioned eater, wer largely confined tothe study of sounds and of swords, Scanning languages of the past andthe present he saw such ‘ales of words corresponding to what he thought of as the same concept, and such continuous changes overtime, that he felt Forced to fcnclude that there was no natural bond tress these social and Fistorial forces. So the doctrine of the arbitrariness of the linguistic sgn expresses, in a masked form and by negation, the principle of the Soxial determination ofthe sign, in as Strong a form as Voloshinov "But the form of Saussure’s version ofthis principle fs not as help 4s Volosinov’s, and unsurprisingly has prevented the development of Social Semiotics in practice. Ths is Because Saussure saw the socal ‘etermination of language as not simpy unlimited but also inheremy Incomprehensibl. ‘That is why he used the term ‘arbivary’ as though the bonds between signifier and sified were subject to the whims of an inscruably powerful cllecive being, Society. "To call these signs ‘conventional’, as many including Sausure have done, is not much beter, since ic sil attributes the source of determination to society without encouraging study of how that determination work in practic, Voloshiny's work afers a clear framework for exploring the nature of the process of signifiation, by sting this process in 8 wider setting in which the action of social forces is poweeful bur by 90 means incomprehensible ‘We will use the Marboro mucau advertisement (reproduced in chapter 1) again wo ilastate the relevance for practialsnabsis of the “PE FOUNDING FATHERS REVISITED B issue of the arbitrariness of the sign. On the one hand the change of “malo "ve seems stall but produces sharply contrasting meaning, and this suggest the arbitrariness of the sounds ofthe to words 4 Saussure would have argued. ‘The word ‘cough isa less “arbitrary, ‘more transparent sign ~ it party repeats the acon of coughing though the ideany i not compete, and is supported by convention (hack, ‘cock, “cack, and other sounds would have served equally ‘wel, Bur the Sle ofthe leering ise i ind of sign with a clearer relation to its meaning. The crude sravl ofthe campaigners contrast Strongly wich dhe symuetial machine-pradced leering ofthe orignal ‘dversement. In Peirce’ terms, the sle of the orga isan inden, 2 signer ofthe eigarete indust’s contol over massive technological Fesourees, while the sravl signifies a repudiation of that hegemonic Structure” ‘This meaning, coded in the writing se, i an imporant component of the overall efect. This sign is highly ‘motiated” or transparent, yeti sab specific toa particular form of society, snce it draws its meaning precisely from some assumptions. about the structures and material practices ofan advanced technological society ‘The fact that its both transparent yet also socially specific helps to play a powerfil role, along with other more opague sign stems, in ‘teating the overall meanings ofthe text concerned. Semiotice and reality [Equally imporant, a practical semiotics should have some account of the relationship of semiosis and realy, hati, the material world that provides the objects of semisis and semiotic activi. Unless semiotics onions this relationship, can have no relevance to the world of Dtcal asi with is confident assumptions about ‘realy and It fanot account for the role of semiodc systems in that word. This elation between semioss and reality bears on some problems that have bedevilled Wester thought for milena, the relaonships between [nguage and thought, thought and reali, and te problems of defining ‘ruth and ‘real In practice, ofcourse, people eal each other ars ‘with ater rough and ready erteria of tit, These rtria have thelr town problems and dificult even at the level of practice, But the Stance of tying to do without any enteia while wating fr absolute definitions of truth an reality has prac consequences to; not least, because it leaves the field to the roughest and readest definitions of| ‘math to mest in head-on colision. ‘Saussure’s contribution here as in so many other ways has been ambiguous. He dtew ateaton to the problematic nature of this Felatonship, but he also devised a strategy that seemed to legitimize aen ‘ru FounpiNe ratiegs azvsrrED practice that ignored it Part of his persuasiveness about the relation {or non-relaon) between language and realy is Because he sad so lite about it: Early in the Coume he takes one popular notion of language as ‘x naming process ony (p65). He labels this iden “a rather nave approac’, and so itis, in the form he summarizes. But instead of eflerng a less nave account of this proces, he fllowed his ‘sual strategy of split and snip, Fis he saw an analogs spl, within the sgn isl, between its material substance and the mental image of thar substance, and further spl, between sgifiers and signieds, land between concepts and reali, The result was 4 four-teed relation instead ofthe nave two-tiered for: Realy Meat concept Sasucan | iid) sin Mena image} Nae sgn (nie Sign sobtnce Saussure saw no necessary relationship berween these levels, so each ould be studied entirely independenty. But he also claimed that in practice the union of mental concept and mental image was so total thatthe two could not be distinguished. They ae ike the wo sides of 2 single sheet of paper: "Thou eth font and the sound the Back; fone cannot cut the front without eating the back at he seme time (p-113). But he didnot se a similarly close bond between sigs (on his account of them) and vealiy. On the contrary, he fet ale eo claim that that relation was ivelevant to. linguistics, which could focus exclusively ‘on the sign, as so defined ‘Linguists then works in the bordering where the elements of sound and thought combine; thir combination produces form at a subtnc? (p13, ais in the orginal), What he has done, then, i wo establish the sig, and hence semboties, in a realm between two materal planes, the world that signs tefer #0 and the material that composes the sign iself (which in Tact comes fom the same material work). The ‘naive sign ie superior jn tht it tolds this double spit imposed on material reality, "The Wester philasophia!tadiion going back to Plato and beyond has een concerned tthe point of obsessin wih this set of problems Inthe twenteth century, the pilosophy ofthe erly Wigenstein offers away out of the dilemma Of the referentaliy problem, that could “Tv FOUNDING FATHERS REMSeTED 25 provide a basis for a semiotics of reference. In his Traaans Loio- Piilsephiu of 1921 (published only four years afer Saussure’s Cow) he set out the following premises 4.01 peponion i pice of rei: A preston i «tod of ray ot we imine {O11 Ae fis sight propson ~ one set out onthe printed page, for ample ~ does not ace to bes plture of the rely wi WH ‘Sconcemed But nether do writen noes a fit iht sem to be = pisure o's pce of muse, nor our pune otton ibe phe) {O bes picture of our speech [nd yetthese sgn-anguages prove tobe pictures, even in he diary Sense of wha hey represent ‘i021 A propesions pictre of rai: for fT undertand 3 prope, Tow dhe station att epesen And Tunderstnd the proposition ‘itu having had seme planed to me, What Wingenstein is dong herein other terms, to make the smallest nit of signification ot an lonent but 2 combination of clomens (a “synuagm as this is commonly caled in semiotics). Petce also saw the sign a8 « proposiion, andthe propostion as a sign. Saussure at one ‘age debates what isthe wnit for semiods, He specially considers, rot the proposition but the “sentence’, but rejects this Beeause the Infinite number of sentences takes them outside langue and outside linguists. He also discounts the word partly because some words break down into even smaller meaning-beaing units which linguists call morphemes (cate which consstof the morphemes a and s, the Later sgnifing pluralig). However, with some provisos he does i effec take the word, considered a a ece-standing entity that can enter Jato relationship wih other such entities, as the most transparent ‘example of a sig. However, if words, or morphemes, are taken asthe primary example ‘of the verbal sgn, there are well-known problems of referential. ‘With a word tke “at” for instance, we can point to Farry four-legged animals running around but what shou a word ke "he"? How many legs does a ‘the’ have? But if the proposion isthe chief site of the relaion between language and really, becomes quite sensible to ask what i the effect onthe proposition ‘the ct ston the mat of changing "the eo “a. The picture of the work” implied is quite diferent. The Aiference concerhs not cas or mats, but claims about knowledge of specific cats and mats, Tt afect the semiosie plane rather than the rimetic plan. With the’ the speaker claims to know the cat and the tat refered to, and specially implies that the hearer knows to. With athe clains are much weaker” any cat on any mat will do. With apyscal picture, such asthe hrse-rider inthe Maribor advertisement, ‘he pater is reversed: the picture is easy to see, But not the% “Tue rounpine FatuERS newstTeD propositions). But again, meaning resides inthe version of the world Projected ~ world in this case where work i romantic and in close fontact with nature, and is completed by leisure ands Matboro Sart as lesure’s natural signifier ‘One important consequence of Winenstin's proposal see meaning in the relation of propositions to ‘pictures or ‘models’ of reality that, the anajis of meanings even in she verbal code inevitably goes ouside the code of language and draws on general semiotics This, of course, ‘makes an autonomous linguistic analysis no longer vale, but it makes ood Sense of actual processes of interpretation as they are understood today. For instance, famous ats of code eracking known t Saussure, such as Champolion’s decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs ot Ravlinson’sdecipherment of Assyrian cuneiform, were dependent on owing precisely what a specific text was talking about Ptolemy and Cleopatra for Champollon, Darius, Xeres, Hystaspes and other, in ‘he Wehistun inscription that provided Rawlinson wth his breakthrough). Madera theories of reading (and. misreading) show the power of ‘top-down strategies which go fom prior expectations ofthe sense to meanings of the specie text. Tnformaton theory. measures the “informaton’ of text in terms of the uncertain ie resoes in & deender, an uncertainty whichis + function of the essing state of knowledge, and its interaction withthe tex. Students of cross-cultural ‘ommuniciion know how often misunderstanding arses because of ‘ferent assumptions in diferent cultural groups. Undoubtedly, it ‘zeates heay demands to extend semiois in this way, to include the ‘Sescrption and analpis ofthe stock of cultural Knowledge ina given sacle. However, if members of «society do i fact normally acquire the ably to accomplish this feat bythe time they aze adolescent, then it should not be besond semiotics to develo its own strategies. As long asthe general relationship of semiosis and reality is avoided 5 too problematic, the study of strategies for relating specific ats of ‘Semioss to reality ls tends to be deferred or ignored Dt for practice Purposes, ti important to have ways of detecting diferent kinds of fron, and lferen hinds of lie ~ or conversely, t develop exer more ‘evious ways of hing or concealing ignorance of the truth, Saussure didnot consider this class of problem. Peirce did sive it some tnsideration. From log he took the eateory of ‘modal’, tha, ‘the kind of tuth value atached w a propositon. There are three pes of modality for Pice: actualy, necessity, and possibility (ie actly true, logically necessary, and bypothetica), He considered tense as part, ‘of modal, something that linguists did not realize Tor oxer ity yes. is elsitcation of signs into cons, indices, and symbols also had 2 ‘modaliy-alue builtin. Teons, as picture-like signs which either are oF resemble what the signify, have the mevality of dzet perception, and THE FOUNDING FaxTIERS REVISITED n hence are the mast persuasive of sins (as modern advertisers and news ‘editors are avare).Indexcal signs are formed from cause-flet chains (ex, smoke-fre) or contiguity inkages (eg, an arm forthe person) ‘These havea high modality Ge, a close ft berween sign and meaning), tout sine they are sill based on an acto judgement o inference they hve a lower modality than icons. Symbols, which relate sgn to object by bonds of convention (ike Saussure’ inguistic sign) have the lowest ‘daly, though Peitce also saw semis sing symbols a the highest ‘mode of though, in an evolutionary schema Peirce’ treament of modality s fairly rudimentary. Three fms of ‘modaliy, and thee kinds of sgn, are not adequate to account for the fall range of strategies that are deployed in this area, and semioicians tend eo overuse Pere’ tems for want of anything beter. But at Teast Peirce has put this topic on the agenda for semiotic theory. And ino far as Ezo is right to call semiois a "theory of the he (976: 7) it cannot afford to neglect this whole cas of strategies for ying more efccsly by posidoning readers and messages in iferent ways 0 normative accounts of reali. At the same time semiotics must abo consider the means for conolling les and their effet ‘Structuralism and the materiality of signs “Thus far we have made Saussure's influence on semiotics seem largely negative. Iti time to correct the balance somewhat. Sauswire made important contbutons to semiotics, and. we believe that post Saussurcan semiotics sill has something to learn from Savssare, ‘Unsurprisingly, Saussure has most o offer inthe wo areas of semiotics to which he devoted most of his i's work, which modem semioiians suppose they have assimilated and gone beyond, or can safely neglect Tnthis section we wl consider the Sausserean notion of tale, spesally 45 applied to stutures of signfrs. In the next we take dachrony, history and the role of change ‘Saussure’ concept of valu is atthe bass of stractralism. Value to Saussure refers tothe place of an element in a system or structure ‘Value consists of «complex of denies snd opposions, He usted the concept of value, a8 opposed to reference by comparing the French word mouion 10 the two English words “mutton” and “sheep” ‘The French word ean refer to the same segment of reality asthe evo English swords, but it as a different value, since the two English words are Upposed to each other, whereas mat in French is undivided, Saussure’s illustration of “alu by reference to semantic oppositions is suggestive, bu it has problems when applied to systems of wcabalary in natural languages and in fact no stem ofthe signieds ofa matral