A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter,

word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into
another sign), not necessarily of the same type.
The notion of code in semiotics refers to : 1. a set of shared rules of
interpretation
2. a meaning-making potential

Since the meaning of a sign depends on the code within which it is situated, codes
provide a framework within which signs make sense. Indeed, we cannot grant
something the status of a sign if it does not function within a code.

Furthermore, if the relationship between a signifier and its signified is

relatively arbitrary, then it is clear that interpreting the conventional meaning
of signs requires familiarity with appropriate sets of conventions.

Reading a text involves relating it to relevant 'codes'. Even an indexical

and iconic sign such as a photograph involves a translation from three
dimensions into two.

When we look at things around us in everyday life we gain a sense of depth from
our binocular vision, by rotating our head or by moving in relation to what we are
looking at. To get a clearer view we can adjust the focus of our eyes. But for making
sense of depth when we look at a photograph none of this helps. We have to decode
the cues.

Semioticians argue that, although exposure over time leads 'visual language' to
seem 'natural', we need to learn how to 'read' even visual and audio-visual texts.

Some theorists argue that even our perception of the everyday world around us
involves codes. there are certain universal features in human visual perception
which in semiotic terms can be seen as constituting a perceptual code.
We owe the concept of 'figure' and 'ground' in perception to this group of
psychologists. Confronted by a visual image, we seem to need to separate a
dominant shape (a 'figure' with a definite contour) from what our current concerns
relegate to 'background' (or 'ground')
 An illustration of this is the famous ambiguous figure devised by the Danish
psychologist Edgar Rubin.

Images such as this are ambiguous concerning figure and ground. Is the figure a
white vase (or goblet, or bird-bath) on a black background or silhouetted profiles on
a white background? Perceptual set operates in such cases and we tend to favour one
interpretation over the other (though altering the amount of black or white which is
visible can create a bias towards one or the other). When we have identified a figure,
the contours seem to belong to it, and it appears to be in front of the ground.
In addition, to introducing the terms 'figure' and 'ground', the Gestalt psychologists
outlined what seemed to be several fundamental and universal principles (sometimes
even called 'laws') of perceptual organization. The main ones are as follows (some of
the terms vary a little): proximity, similarity, good continuation, closure, smallness,
surroundedness, symmetry and pragmatism.
Now we're in this frame of mind, interpreting the image shown above should not
be too difficult. What tends to confuse observers initially is that they assume that
the white area is the ground rather than the figure. If you couldn't before, you
should now be able to discern the word 'TIE'.
Codes are not simply 'conventions' of communication but rather procedural
systems of related conventions which operate in certain domains. Codes
organize signs into meaningful systems which correlate signifiers and
signifieds. Codes transcend single texts, linking them together in an
interpretative framework.
Codes are interpretive frameworks which are used by both producers and
interpreters of texts. In creating texts we select and combine signs in relation to
the codes with which we are familiar.
In reading texts, we interpret signs with reference to what seem to be
appropriate codes. Usually the appropriate codes are obvious,
'overdetermined' by all sorts of contextual cues. Signs within texts can be
seen as embodying cues to the codes which are appropriate for interpreting
them. The medium employed clearly influences the choice of codes.
In understanding even the simplest texts we draw on a repertoire of textual
and social codes. Literary texts tend to make greater demands.
In applying a code to the text, we may find that it undergoes revision and
transformation in the reading process; continuing to read with this same code, we
discover that it now produces a 'different' text, which in turn modifies the code by
which we are reading it, and so on.
Many semioticians take human language as their starting point. The primary and
most pervasive code in any society is its dominant 'natural' language, within
which (as with other codes) there are many 'sub-codes'. A fundamental sub-
division of language into spoken and written forms.

The various kinds of codes overlap, and the semiotic analysis of any text or
practice involves considering several codes and the relationships between them.
A range of typologies of codes can be found in the literature of semiotics.
Here are those which are most widely mentioned in the context of
media, communication and cultural studies.
• Social codes
[In a broader sense all semiotic codes are 'social codes'] verbal language
(phonological, syntactical, lexical, prosodic and
paralinguistic subcodes);
 bodily codes (bodily contact, proximity, physical
orientation, appearance, facial expression,
gaze, head nods, gestures and posture);
commodity codes (fashions, clothing, cars);
behavioural codes (protocols, rituals, role-playing,
games).

Textual codes
[Representational
codes]
aesthetic codes within the various expressive arts (poetry,
drama, painting, sculpture, music, etc.) - including classicism,
romanticism, realism;
scientific codes, including mathematics; genre, rhetorical
and stylistic codes: narrative (plot, character, action, dialogue,
setting, etc.), exposition, argument and so on;
mass media codes including photographic, televisual, filmic,
radio, newspaper and magazine codes, both technical and
conventional (including format).

Interpretative codes
[There is less agreement about these as semiotic codes]  perceptual
codes: e.g. of visual perception (Hall 1980, 132; Nichols 1981,
11ff; Eco 1982) (note that this code does not assume intentional
communication);
ideological codes: More broadly, these include codes for
‘encoding’ and 'decoding' texts-dominant (or 'hegemonic'),
negotiated or oppositional (Hall 1980; Morley 1980). More
specifically, we may list the 'isms', such as individualism,
liberalism, feminism, racism, materialism, capitalism,
progressivism, conservatism, socialism, objectivism,
consumerism and populism; (note, however, that all codes can
be seen as ideological).

These three types of codes correspond broadly to three key kinds of knowledge
required by interpreters of a text , namely knowledge of:
the world (social knowledge); the medium
and the genre
 (textual knowledge);
the relationship between (1) and (2) (modality
judgements).

Within a culture, social differentiation is 'over-determined' by a multitude of

social codes. We communicate our social identities through the work we do, the
way we talk, the clothes we wear, our hairstyles, our eating habits, our domestic
environments and possessions, our use of leisure time, our modes of travelling and
so on . Language use acts as one marker of social identity. In 1954, Ross
introduced a distinction between so-called 'U and Non-U' uses of the English
language. He observed that members of the British upper class ('U') could be
distinguished from other social classes ('Non-U') by their use of words such as
those in the following table (Crystal 1987, 39).
It is interesting to note that several of these refer to
food and eating. Whilst times have changed, similar
distinctions still exist in British society
One of the most fundamental kinds of textual code relates to genre. Traditional
definitions of genres tend to be based on the notion that they constitute particular
conventions of content (such as themes or settings) and/or form (including
structure and style) which are shared by the texts which are regarded as belonging
to them. This mode of defining a genre is deeply problematic. For instance, genres
overlap and texts often exhibit the conventions of more than one genre. It is
seldom hard to find texts which are exceptions to any given definition of a
particular genre. Furthermore, the structuralist concern with synchronic analysis
ignores the way in which genres are involved in a constant process of change.

Any text uses not one code, but many. Theorists vary in their classification
of such codes. Roland Barthes itemised five codes employed in literary texts:

hermeneutic (narrative turning-points); proairetic (basic narrative

actions);
cultural (prior social knowledge); semic (medium-
related codes) and symbolic (themes).

HERMENEUTIC AND PROAIRETIC CODES: The two ways of creating suspense

in narrative, the first caused by unanswered questions, the second by the
anticipation of an action's resolution.
The hermeneutic code refers to those plot elements that raise questions on the
part of the reader of a text or the viewer of a film.
The proairetic code refers to mere actions— those plot events that simply lead
to yet other actions.

Yuri Lotman argued that a poem is a 'system of systems' - lexical,

syntactical, metrical, morphological, phonological and so on - and that
the relations between such systems generated powerful literary effects.
Each code sets up expectations which other codes violate (Lotman, 1976).
The same signifier may play its part in several different codes. The meaning
of literary texts may thus be 'overdetermined' by several codes. Just as signs
need to be analysed in their relation to other signs, so codes need to be
analysed in relation to other code