Social-semiotic theory

1. Social-semiotictheory Multimodality; a social semiotic approach to contemporarycommunication 2010 GuntherKress, 2010

2. Chapter 4 A social-semiotictheory of multimodality

3. Semiotics: The study of signs and sign processes • Kressadds a social perspective to the semioticstheory • Multimodal text: writing, image, number, colour • Social semioticscansaysomethingabout the function of each mode and is interested in the meaning the combined modes express • Social-semiotictheory: A sign is a fusion of form (signifier) and meaning (signified)

4. Approaches • Linguistic approach: Focus is ondescriptions of form and formal relations • Pragmatic approach: Focus is on the context and effects • Social-semiotic approach: Focus is on the interest of the sign-maker, the environment, the meaning and the semiotic/cultural ressources

5. Signs • In social semioticstheory it is assumedthat: • Signsarealwaysnewly made in social interaction • Signsaremotivated; not arbitrary relations of meaning and form • All signsaremetaphors

6. Semantic vs. phoneticentity • ”At the point of searching for a name, the signifierthat I am looking for is not a string of sounds but a ’label’, a name, that I have encounteredbeforesufficientlyoften to knowthatitsmeaning-potential – woody, perennial plant, of significantsizewith a strong, usually single stem – bestcapureswhatthisthing I need to name is.”

7. Representation & communication • All signsare made withtwoperspectives and interests: • The sign-makers • The recepients

8. The interest of the sign-maker • The sign indicates the interest of the sign-maker in relation to the specific bit of the worldthat is at issue • The sign gives us an insightinto the subjectivity of the sign-maker

9. Chapter 7 Design and arrangements: makingmeaningmaterial

10. Semiotics and design • Design as a central term in semioticproduction • General social and technicalchangelead to changes in the role of semiotics • Due to media convergence and especially the repositioning of individual, semiotics is now a matter of designratherthancritique

11. Design • Why is design becoming the central term in semioticsnowadays? • ”The resumption of agency by individuals – urged by the state and forced by the market – meansthat the shaping of meaning and of identity, becomes a matter of individualdesign.” [Kress, 2010: 134]

12. Design • What is design? • ”Design is the process of translating the rhetor’spoliticallyorientedassessment of the environment of communicationintosemioticallyshapedmaterial.” [Kress, 2010: 325]

13. Design • Modern vs. tradition

14. Design • ”The design of the potatopeeler is always more than the design of oneobjectortool: it is the design of a complex ensemble, of an environment of social relations, of social practises and configurations, of purposes, goalsaims, tasks; and of effect.”

15. Arrangements: makingmeaningsmaterial • How the organizing of the elements in the semioticproductoccurs • Arrangements; the organization of elements affectsmeaningmaking

16. Texts • Texts; the text has a sense of ’completeness’ of meaning (in itsappropriate social invironment). • Semioticentity: Text -> modules -> signs.

17. Frames • Frames; a ’tool’ for understanding the semioticentity – making interpretation possible; ”Withoutframenomeaning.”

18. Whatelse is framed? • Modes: ~ medium, a way of framing the entity • The mode provides a ’lense’ – the process of meaningdependon the waywechoose to conveyourmessage (in which form). • Relations, processes and connections: Dependingon the mode; for instance, a text is perceiveddifferently, dependingon the mode whichcouldbeeitherwrittenorspokenorsung

19. Conclusions of chapter 7 • Overall, Kressusessemiotics as a theoreticalaproach to explainhowmoderncomprehension and meaningmakingare a matter of design • To this, the mode and frameareparticularlyimportant in understanding the relation betweenentities and thusmakingmeaning • Also, wecanusethis to understand design processes; as a matter of development in society and the renewedimportance of the individual and the individual’sagency