Social semiotics is a useful tool in understanding our world.
An offshoot of the study of sign processes or semiotics, social semiotics seeks to explain meaning-making as a social practice. Human appears to be the single identifying figure in processes of signification and interpretation, shaping both individuals and the society. According to one of the principal philosophers of social semiotics, (1991), social semiotics greatly deals with social meaning-making practices which are of visual, verbal or aural nature with direct systems or channels known to be as semiotic modes. Such modes vary and could include visual, verbal, written and gesture among others, by which could be also combined hence multimodality. (1991) also noted that social semiotics directly purport on developing analytical and theoretical frameworks which can explain meaning-making from a social perspective. Social semiotics then is simply the social dimensions of meaning. A problematic and conflict-laden philosophy that emerged, social semiotics had made its way on the forefront of debates. In this paper, opposing views about social semiotics will be discussed.
Social semiotics proponents
(1991) is one among the many who proposed social semiotic going beyond its idealistic foundation as a ‘science of signs.’ The author asserts that social semiotics is an intervention in the theory and practice of semiotics, emphasizing the practice-oriented view wherein the very practice of making sense of social semiotic systems is indeed a social meaning making practice. He also noted that people are not above or external to the meanings and social practices which constitute ones object of theory making. There is an explicit ‘necessitation of teleological and causal explanations wherein the psychosocial functionalism of the speaker’s needs, goals and purposes are could be rejected.’ The social practice points to the fact that meanings and practices are rationalized on the basis of system’s goals and purposes. This simply means that when people attach meaning to an object they consider a wide interplay among involved systems. (1991) also made mention that such theoretical and analytical practices are critical elements of contextual relations and social semiotics practices.
Social semiotics, for , is a set of meaning making practices that is always immanent when it comes to ‘exchanges and interactions of some wide social formation along with regulatory and deregulatory functions.’ When it comes to social semiotics, immanence could be regarded in two ways where practices are always constituted in praxis (or established practice) and reconstitute social foundations on unified social semiotic practice. (1978) has more detailed explanation:
“It is very unlikely that one part of the semantic system would remain totally isolated from another; when new meanings are being created on a large scale. It is certainly quite inadequate to interpret the innovations simply as changes in subject matter. The changes are brought about in this way involve media, genres, participants and participants relations, all the components of the situation. It is through the intermediary of the social structure that the semantic change is brought about. Social style is a function of social relationships and situation types generated by the social structure. A shift in the fashions of speaking will be better understood by reference to changing patterns of social interaction and social relationships than by search for a direct link between the language and the material culture.”
What shares the same view of that of is but is more compelling because of the fact that it captures both tacit and explicit modes compared to which used only the most tacit of modes which is language. Initially, (2005) made concrete the complexities of meaning making and by which aspects of modern societies create meaning from. The author stressed that semiotic resources encompasses obvious modes of communication such as language, gesture, images and music and less obvious with the likes of food, dress and everyday objects, all of which carry cultural value and significance. With these in mind, (2005) advances two opinions regarding social semiotics. First, he address that the applicability of social semiotics theory highly depends on specifications of instances and problems thereby requiring oneself into semiotic concepts and methods. Second is that the author believed that social semiotics is a form of enquiry with no prêt-à-porter answers. states that:
“social semiotics dramatically changes in terms of semiotic production from ‘sign’ to the way people use semiotic ‘resources’ both to produce communicative artifacts and events and to interpret them in the context of specific social situations and practices; social semiotics compares and contrasts semiotic modes rather than constructing separate accounts of the various semiotic modes; social semiotics focuses on how people regulate the use of semiotic resources and social semiotics is itself also a practice, oriented to observation and analysis toward the richness and complexity of semiotic production and interpretation, and to social intervention.”
views are sturdily highlighted in the song ‘Closing Time’ by Semisonic. Personally, the lyrics of the song include irony and metaphor and will highly depend on the interpretation of an individual as a song. There are two things that confirm such argument. First is on the comments by the viewers whom are quite perceptive. Based on how they understand the song, they incorporate it into their lives, that is. And second is the interpretation of the makers of the home made music video (which is available on from that of the official (original) music video (found on ) considering the general theme. These two basic social logonomic differences clearly manifest and convey varying social messages and adherence to such messages, because of the social semiotic accounts present.
Immediately, the logonomic rule visible is the difference between men and women and how the message of the song and not the video was conveyed by means of using these two completely different figures. Preconditioning happens in both video and in a way understandable to the viewers, placing the target audience at a particular position the way society dictates it to be. A theme by which others can relate, the public or the audience was placed in a position where they will make meaning of what they had seen. Mimetic content of the video also suggest that in a way modern societies still holds similarities when it comes to social aspect hence the almost similar theme of the two videos. Semiotic works are therefore encompasses both who are directly and indirectly affected by social semiotics. The video is a channel of social semiotic and the content of the video is another social semiotic. Those who will watch the videos) made sense of the video by digesting social meanings most closely to their values and cultures.
Social semiotics opponents
(2002) implicitly states that social semiotics is the fundamental limitation of semiotics. He noted though that many of the criticisms of semiotics are directed at a form of semiotics to which contemporary semioticians adhere. The central concern of social semiotics is what we came to know as specific signifying practices. The author also stressed that the roots of social semiotics can be traced to the early theorists although none of made explicit legitimatization of social use of signs. did envisioned semiotics as science that deals with the roles of signs as part of the social life and strongly advocated that semiosis as a dialogic process is central to his concept indicating that signs do not exist as distinctive but with the needs of interpreter and other social conventions. Such condition made possible the birth of an emphasis on social dimension of semiotics in terms of meaning-making practices.
Probably, the most distinguished criticism to social semiotics is that of (1988) who refer to the work of as rubbish bin. The authors believed that unique to social semiotics are: the culture, society and politics as intrinsic to semiotics, the other semiotic systems alongside verbal language, the act of speaking and concrete signifying practices in other codes, the diachrony, time, history, process and change, the process of signification, the structures of the signified and the material natures of signs, all of which explanation lacks. As such, there are many contradictions to work although he acknowledged that language is itself a social fact. In some instances, the author affirmed that the ‘social over the individual but only as an abstract and immobilized version of the social order which is threatened by the actions of the innumerable individuals. had its basis on the interplay between language and speaking, and regarded meaning as social, which is admittedly true. Knowingly, what fails to relate is the applicability to any kind of meaning and not only to the cognitive.
Social semiotics neutralizers
There are however who chose to strike a balance between the two such that (1988). The author asserts that the general Semiotics tends to be formalistic, abstracting signs from the contexts of use; Social Semiotics takes the meaning-making process or semiosis to be more fundamental than the system of meaning-relations among sign. With these words, (1998) contends that signs are considered only the resources to be deployed in making meaning. He continues that “social semiotics examines semiotic practices, specific to a culture and community, for the making of various kinds of texts and meanings in various situational contexts and contexts of culturally meaningful activity. Social semiotics therefore makes no radical separation between theoretical and applied semiotics and is more closely associated with discourse analysis, multimedia analysis, educational research, cultural anthropology, political sociology, etc.”
There is an anonymous author who counterbalances the debates by means of comparing three founding works on social semiotics as founded their claims on role of reference, meaning as a social element, meaning as psychological and the linguistic system while their basic difference is that had a more binary conception of the sign compared to which is more tended on triadic conception. The trichotomies of the sign are that: the nature of the sign itself, the nature of the relation of the sign to its object and the kind of relation that the interpretant of the sign bears to the sign. Nevertheless, there are several differences of that of and ideologies.
Aside from the fact that the former uses binary and the latter uses triadic conception of sign like they have opposing explanation as to why no sign exists in isolation. For , this is because signs are generated by the system whereas believed that it is because signs generate an endless chain of interpretants. Basically, theory applies to languages and either excludes or assimilates languages all non-verbal semiotic fact. On the other hand, does not seem to have concrete typologies of signs like that of
A Personal Standpoint
I am one with the ideologies of as he unambiguously believes that for social semiotics to work there must be a sign, a significance and a signifier. I also believed that signs exist not in a vacuum therefore signs or meaning are generated and travels through interpretant leading to chains of interpretants. This reflects a reality that people classify signs according to their preference but with reference to their knowledge of the signs. The trichotomies help us in identifying the differences among signs and attached individualized meanings into it.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment