Media literacy and semiotics: Toward a future taxonomy of meaning

Media literacy and semiotics:Toward a future taxonomy of meaning

ELLIOT GAINES

Abstract

The pervasiveness of mass media and our dependence on it in contemporary

life suggest that special skills are necessary in order to understand the na-

ture of media and its e¤ects on the interpretation of issues and events that

happen outside the scope of an individual’s experience. This essay explores

the need to develop a semiotic method designed to promote media literacy.

This method must be intuitive, use common language, and appeal to con-

temporary cultural values. The complexities of the language and concepts

of semiotics engender resistance. The purpose of this project is to work

toward a new taxonomy of semiotics by taking complex ideas from various

theories that can be adapted into a simple yet practical method for media

analysis.

Keywords: semiotics; media literacy; taxonomy; language; pragmatism.

1. The need for a method of critical media analysis

The conditions of contemporary society demand an educated, well-

informed population that can cope with high levels of information,

sophisticated media technologies, and critical thinking necessary to par-

ticipate in democratic decision-making processes. Much of what people

claim to know is based on interpretations of information delivered by

mass media and understood from the context of an individual’s knowl-

edge and experience. Because mass communication technology is so ac-

cessible and easy to use, and its content appears to be clearly identifiedas information or entertainment, people take for granted that they under-

stand the meanings of various kinds of messages. The pervasiveness of

mass media and our dependence on it in contemporary life suggest that

special skills are necessary in order to understand the nature of media

Semiotica 171–1/4 (2008), 239–249 0037–1998/08/0171–0239

DOI 10.1515/SEMI.2008.076 6 Walter de Gruyter

Brought to you by | Purdue University LibrariesAuthenticated

Download Date | 5/22/15 6:00 AM

and its e¤ects on the interpretation of issues and events that happen

outside the scope of an individual’s experience. Semiotics could be the

key.

Everyone is a semiotician by nature, but few people are aware of it. Se-

miotic theory assumes an innate capacity to process sense perception and

interpret the meanings of signs that motivate the everyday practices ofliving. At di¤erent times and in various contexts, individuals negotiate

between their experience and cultural habits imposing established beliefs

and practices.

Meanings are verified by interpreting complex levels of perception and

experience, and understanding informs the practical fulfillment of the

needs and desires of everyday life. A collective consciousness about what

is normal, correct, moral, and true circulate assumptions that become

part of a shared cultural reality. Cultural habits have powerful e¤ects onbehavior yet, by definition, beliefs and opinions do not require sensible

evidence for verification. At the heart of scientific inquiry are categories

of experience that are demonstrated as sensible and reasonable. In the

end, reason is the key to knowledge and understanding. But if it is true

that much of what we know is information received through mass media,

how can we judge if mediated knowledge is based upon reliable evidence?

How can the authority of a given source of information be determined? In

order to understand whether a source of information is credible, a criticalmethod of media analysis is necessary.

The purpose of this project is to propose a method for critical thinking

and media literacy that attempts to work within the fabric of contempo-

rary society. In order to be popular, a method must be intuitive, use com-

mon language, and appeal to contemporary cultural values. Recognizing

the problems implicit in a project aimed at developing a way to under-

stand the world, my intention is to take richly complex ideas from various

theories of semiotics and adapt them into a simple yet practical methodfor media analysis. As McLuhan explained Dewey’s belief, ‘we learn

what we do’ (quoted in Postman and Weingartner 1969: 17). Since knowl-

edge grows out of practice rather than through the study of theory, apply-

ing basic semiotic methods to the analysis of media representations could

prepare a new generation of media consumers to understand the assump-

tions, myths, and fallacies generated through media production processes.

While this method must be adapted to each specific question, a functional

knowledge of media analysis has a great potential for maturing over timewith practice.

A semiotic taxonomy of meaning would provide a systematic method

of classifying meaning-making processes that address the future necessi-

ties of media literacy. As mass media technologies continue to dominate

240 E. Gaines



social discourse, semiotics could play an essential role in helping society

to understand and critique the media. But the future will necessarily de-

velop from a context of contemporary life, language, and culture. So be-

fore any such method will be adopted, problems embodied by the lan-

guage of semiotics must be addressed.

2. The language of semiotics

A descriptive semiotic language would provide clear categorical distinc-

tions between various media of representation. Certainly this has already

been done, but diverse philosophical perspectives rely on exclusive lan-

guage that is constantly evolving as theorists attempt to describe and

clarify concepts. The language used by semiotic scholars is necessarily ex-clusive because of the rich complex historical interdisciplinary continuity

between philosophy, science, linguistics, and the arts. A critical method of

media analysis that can be learned by younger people and the general

public is needed. The method must be simple yet logical to appeal to a

culture that takes media literacy for granted.

Semiotics explores the structures and processes of representing meaning

and the reasoning engendered through communication and interpreta-

tion. However, in the current competition with other ideas, semioticsappears to be hidden behind everything from string theory to intelligent

design. Semiotics provides insight into the processes that establish the

meanings of things. Even among related fields such as cultural studies

and literary criticism, semiotics appears to be a background theory that

may help inform the other disciplines. In addition, textbooks for courses

in media analysis include sections on semiotics that tend to focus more on

theory than applied method (see Berger 1991; Vande Berg et al. 2004;

O’Sullivan et al. 2003; and Branston and Sta¤ord 1996). With semioticsas a background theory focused on structure and codes, most analysis de-

pends on social science theories like uses and gratifications, cultivation

theory, or critical theories of Marxism, ideology, rhetoric, feminism, psy-

choanalytic, and other cultural studies approaches. By focusing more on

the semiotic, media analysts can explore the nature of signs, sign rela-

tions, and the processes that structure the messages through the various

forms and levels of mass communication. At best, however, textbooks

draw isolated theoretical perspective from semiotics to support othermethods.

Debates continue between adherents to the two major semiotic tradi-

tions emerging from the work of Peirce and Saussure. At the same time,

intellectual movements follow Burke’s (1966) Language as Symbolic

Media literacy and semiotics 241



Action, traditional rhetorical studies, linguistics, psychology, sociology,

anthropology, cultural studies, and others. Each develops enclaves of in-

tellectual debate that thrive on discipline-specific languages and loyalties

to the way particular phenomena are named. Naming, however, does not

control the way people interpret the meanings of things. Every speaker

represents a culturally specific point-of-view that tries to limit how othersunderstand what they are naming.

To study language is to explore the essence of a distinctly human ca-

pacity to invent and understand expressions representing our invisible

mental experiences (Chomsky 1999: 294). The average person simplifies

and manages complex science and philosophy by reducing ideas into con-

cise preexisting knowledge categories. In order for the concepts of semiot-

ics to gain popular appeal, the discipline must be reduced to a systematic

approach using language adapted from everyday speech. Only the mostbasic and essential ideas should be used.

While the language of semiotics is inaccessible to the uninitiated, there

are many examples of others inventing ways to explain what semioticians

have already accomplished. For example, the main character in the novel

The Da Vinci Code is called a ‘symbologist’ (Brown 2003). Tom Hanks

starred as the main character in the film version. When he was inter-

viewed on Inside the Actor’s Studio he made a point that the book was

fiction and stated that there was no such thing as a symbologist. HostJames Lipton replied that the character was most likely a semiotician.1

The word symbologist has an intuitive appeal because people assume it

means one who studies symbols. Did Dan Brown’s publishers simply as-

sume that readers would be put o¤ by the word semiotician but could

guess at the meaning of a symbologist? From a marketing perspective, the

goal would be to appeal to the interest of a potential reader. Whereas the

word semiotician is lost on most readers, it is assumed that people will

guess what a symbologist is.An interesting semiotic moment takes place in the film Serendipity,2 a

romantic comedy starring John Cusack and Kate Beckensale. Just days

before he is to get married, Cusack’s character Jonathan searches for

Sara (Beckensale), a women he had a brief romantic encounter with years

earlier and still dreams of meeting again. After following many leads with

Dean (Jeremy Piven) his best friend and best man, he suddenly decides to

end his search and go back to his upcoming wedding. When Dean presses

him for his reason, Jonathan describes the semiotic nature of his search.He explains the di¤erence between a sign and a clue. He describes a clue

as an indexical sign saying, ‘a clue is what a detective uses to find a sus-

pect.’ He lists various indexes such as finding a credit card receipt that

he hopes will lead to his girlfriend’s address. He describes a sign as a

242 E. Gaines



symbol or omen that infers a meaning. For example, the address from

the credit card receipt turned out to be a bridal shop that he interpreted

as a symbol meaning he should go home and get married. Cusack also

lists things that did not happen and states that ‘the absence of signs is a

sign.’

While this may be a statement of semiotic theory, the definitionswere designed to fit the context of the film and advance the plot by

building tension and concern for how the characters will overcome the

obstacles and resolve the romantic plot. Lacking a formal knowledge of

semiotics, the text still demonstrates a conceptual understanding of sign

logic.

A short piece from the New York Times Magazine uses the term ‘semi-

otic disobedience’ to describe a video game. A video game was designed

to parody employees for the Kinko’s copy service company and asks theplayer to experience ‘the indi¤erence of these purple-shirted malcontents

first-hand and consider the possible reasons behind their malaise’ (Walker

2006: 18). The term semiotic disobedience plays with phrase ‘civil dis-

obedience’ and suggests the game is intended to redefine the meaning of

Kinko’s (Walker 2006: 18). In a media world dominated by corporations

interested in creating and maintaining the image of a company, the indi-

vidual can still decide how to understand slogans and names that contra-

dict consumer experience. The video game constructs an ‘artificial myth’by making fun of what others assume to be true (Gaines 1998). ‘The

Daily Show with Jon Stewart’ operates on the same principle when com-

edy writers convey news of current events with greater accuracy than con-

ventional news programs even though they intend to create jokes for a

fake news program (Gaines 2006). So, while semiotic concepts may drive

the representations of ideas and information circulating through contem-

porary media, the language and science of semiotics is lost in its own sea

of language and theory.Semiotics should eventually be recognized as a tool for understanding

media in the information age. But while literature and films like The

Da Vinci Code and Eco’s The Name of the Rose are clearly grounded

in semiotic principles, the language of semiotics is conspicuously ab-

sent. Reviews of both Eco’s and Brown’s novels mention semiotics in

passing as do the occasional magazine article on fashion or other rele-

vant aspects of popular culture. As Eco stated, ‘. . . I consider myself a

university professor who writes novels on Sunday . . . I cannot expect tohave one million readers with stu¤ on semiotics’ (Eco 2005). The signifi-

cance of semiotics is implied but discipline-specific language and theory

are avoided with popular audiences because they will not recognize its

practical use.




3. Pragmatism, semiotic method, and language usage

Pragmatism and semiotics are directly related according to Peirce. His

notion of pragmatism had more to do with the nature of how people un-

derstand the meanings of things than the common use of the term prag-

matism that refers to acting with an intention to get some practical result.Peirce claimed to have come to his understanding of pragmatism through

a ‘logical and non-psychological study of the essential nature of signs’

(quoted in Brent 1998: 327). He infers that meaning is a relationship be-

tween a sign that stands for or represents something, and an interpreter

who understands its practical consequences. The importance of Peirce’s

‘Pragmatic Maxim’ is that it puts the interpreter at the center of the

meaning-making process rather than the relationship between the sign to

its object (EP 2: 135). The original ‘Pragmatic Maxim’ is quoted as fol-lows: ‘Consider what e¤ects that might conceivably have practical bear-

ings we conceive the object of our conception to have: then, our concep-

tion of those e¤ects is the whole of our conception of the object’ (EP 2:

135). While Peirce’s wording is awkward and confusing, Morris simply

stated that pragmatism is the study of ‘the relation of signs to interpreters’

(1938: 6). The interpretation of meaning is always grounded in the con-

text of an interpreter who understands the practical consequences of signs

from a particular point-of-view. That is not to suggest that signs neverhave universal meanings, but that perceptions are always embodied in a

particular context and that the meaning of something is determined by

how its consequences are understood. This conflicted with the Pragma-

tism made popular by James and Dewey that suggests ‘meaning consists

in action, in doing’ (Deely 2001: 615). Thus, rather than explaining the

theoretical nature of meaning as Peirce had originally explained his idea,

pragmatism is commonly used to refer to a straightforward way of think-

ing and dealing with problems in order to get desired results.The semiotic traditions of Peirce, Saussure, Hjelmslev, and Morris, to

name a few key figures, have provided an elaborate lexicon and method-

ological systems for the study of signs. However, they all require a great

depth of study that has maintained the exclusive character of the disci-

pline. For example, Peirce created a brilliant system of ten classes of signs

as part of his semiotic theory, but ‘using the ten classes of signs as a cate-

gorization scheme seems to yield nothing other than a clumsy new lan-

guage’ (Shank and Cunningham 2006). In further developing semioticlanguage Morris stated, ‘These terms have already taken on an ambiguity

which threatens to cloud rather than illuminate the problems of the field

. . . and distract attention from genuine problems’ (1946: 217). For the

purposes of media literacy in general education and in order to enter the

244 E. Gaines



sphere of popular culture, both the language and method must be elo-

quent without being confusing or counter intuitive. But as Safire explains,

‘coiners can’t be choosers . . . usage determines meaning’ (2006: 16). The

acceptance of a neologism is reflected by how people understand and use

a word. Again, consider the case for Peirce’s pragmatism. Peirce intended

a particular meaning when he first used the term ‘pragmatism’ in 1905and subsequently coined the term ‘pragmaticism’ to distinguish his in-

tended meaning from how the original term was used by colleagues in-

cluding James and Dewey (Deely 2001: 614–625).

If language is potentially problematic because usage does not conform

to intended meanings, media technologies compound the issues with

additional layers of signifying processes. How is the world represented

through various forms of new media technology? Consumers read content

without due consideration of the e¤ect of media to anonymously assumeauthority of the authors of messages. Who determines what information

is relevant and how can consumers distinguish facts from opinions about

events and objects represented in the media?

4. Framing a taxonomy of semiotics

The term ‘semiotics’ evokes confusion among the uninitiated. As statedearlier, ‘coiners can’t be choosers’ (Safire 2006: 16). People generally as-

sume they know how to communicate and interpret the world, but with-

out consistent methods people use language according to their own

habits. Because a scholar coins a term intended to describe some phenom-

enon does not ensure that people will embrace it.

If language is potentially problematic because usage does not conform

to intended meanings, media technologies compound the issues with addi-

tional layers of signifying processes. The pervasive use of any communi-cation technology suggests a tacit acceptance of the technology as ‘medi-

ators of perception’ (Postman and Weingartner 1969: 166). Consumers

read entertainment and information content without due consideration

of the e¤ect of media to frame social discourse and to impose a sense of

social norms.

A semiotic taxonomy of descriptive terms for the analysis of mass me-

dia would be useful for addressing the needs for critical thinking and me-

dia literacy. Taxonomy is a system used to create an unambiguous se-mantic structure of categories for organizing the meanings of objects and

ideas. ‘Taxonomic models are kinds of knowledge trees underlying much

human classification of ordinary experiences. Taxonomies are employed

when individuals classify phenomena by the formula ‘‘x is a kind of y’’ ’




(Shore 1998: 159). Considering the volume of materials already devoted

to the topic, it must be acknowledged that there are many di¤erent ap-

proaches, methods, terms, and categories, and the language of semiotics

remains problematic for the general public.

Debates among semioticians, and the larger debates within the acad-

emy concerned with philosophies of communication and interpretationof meaning are diverse and substantive. Still semiotics provides the clear-

est logical approach to a media literacy method. Danesi (2002) gets to the

heart of media literacy issues succinctly stating: ‘In identifying and docu-

menting media structures, the semiotician is guided by three basic ques-

tions: 1. What does a certain structure (text, genre, etc.) mean? 2. How

does it represent what it means? 3. Why does it mean what it means?’

(Danesi 2002: 23). Danesi’s questions are clear without discipline-specific

terminology.The first question looks for an interpretation or conclusive understand-

ing that generally emerges at a connotative level, and anticipates that a

media analyst will have the competencies necessary for questions 2 and

3, asking how and why. Asking how meaning is represented is the central

question of semiotic analysis. To answer this question the representa-

tional structures of communication must be revealed. The key concepts

are generally expressed with words that demonstrate the assumptions of

semiotics. The first is that signs are an expression or representation of anobject or meaning that exists separately from the object or meaning that

it stands for. The interpreter always has a relationship with an object of

perception, but the object of a sign is not a¤ected by how it is interpreted.

The most immediate and obvious question of the process of media

analysis is: 1. What does a certain structure (text, genre, etc.) mean? (Da-

nesi 2002: 23). This question evokes Peirce’s ideas about ‘pragmatism,’

the notion of ‘Thirdness,’ and the ‘interpretant.’ Conflating these distinct

ideas exploits their commonalities and brackets the finer details valued byscholars (see EP 1, EP 2; Deely 2001). At the same time, a complex con-

cept can be simply stated so one can understand that the meaning of a

sign generates a new sign in the mind of an individual. All interpretations

originate from a perspective that assumes the practical consequences of

an object or event from a particular point-of-view, but media elevate the

representation of meaning to a higher level. The processes of interpreta-

tion happen through negotiation and power, and media productions im-

pose the naturalization of meaningful consequences.In media literacy, it is especially important to distinguish between the

meaning intended by the messenger, the neutral or denotative meaning

of an object (which has no motivation to have meaning), and a perceptual

judgment negotiated from a receiver’s contextual point-of-view (Nattiez

246 E. Gaines



1990: 46). The classification of a meaning is based on what the interpreter

believes is the e¤ect or consequence of the object or meaning. One sees

the world according to how it fits into the needs and expectations of

life so that things are classified as good/bad, important/not important,

appealing/not appealing, and so on as situations emerge that can be dis-

tinguished accordingly.Media producers have the power to construct messages, but audiences

can negotiate their meanings. The strengths and limits of any medium to

represent the truth are defined by its capacity to focus attention from a

constructed point-of-view. When signs are read, they construct new signs

in the minds of individuals in the audience. The processes of media anal-

ysis that engender media literacy begin with reactions to these new signs

or interpretations that raise questions and inspire intuitive negotiations

about the meanings.Exploring how meaning is represented requires language and concepts

that reveal structural components of representation that make particular

meanings and practices normal, and therefore intended to be perceived as

correct. Asking why media producers construct a particular message or

interpretation of objects or events addresses social relations and factors

that motivate communication strategies. These are negotiations for power

over how cultures should understand events and objects, what we should

believe is true, correct, or normal, and thus prescribe ways of acting inany given situation. The role of semiotics, then, is to provide analytical

tools that empower audiences to systematically recognize media devices

and strategies designed to control social discourse, beliefs, and practices.

Answering what an intended message means and how it is represented

prepares one to understand why it represents the interests of its pro-

ducers. Media messages are not necessarily bad or good, but they do as-

sert a dominant point of view. Semiotic methods enable critical thinking

and prepare media literate audiences to resist being manipulated.The taxonomy of semiotics will be progressive and expansive. Words

used to express the concepts of semiotics develop into a complex vocabu-

lary of interrelated ideas. All terms must have a practical function related

to media analysis. The way the taxonomy develops will thus construct a

new culture of media literate semiotic analysts.

Understanding the logic of sign relations can increase productivity,

clarify issues necessary for making e¤ective decisions, and enhance cre-

ativity. Knowledge of semiotics can help to distinguish signs that functionas propositions, arguments, and actuality, and to recognize the di¤erence

between nature and history, fact and opinion. Semiotics is a way to under-

stand the logic of how meaning is derived from the interpretation of signs.

So, I am suggesting that a semiotic taxonomy must appeal to people that




are generally more inclined to look for results and avoid the e¤ort neces-

sary to acquire deep theoretical understandings.

I conclude by quoting Nathan Houser speaking about the future of

semioitcs: Perhaps at our present state of understanding of language and

semiosis we don’t have any need for such complexity — just as we didn’t

once have any need for relativity physics — but I predict that somedaywe will face a use — even a need for Peirce’s full theory. (Houser 1990:

xxxviii)

Notes

1. James Lipton, Inside the Actor’s Studio, Bravo Network, May 14, 2006.

2. Peter Chelsom (dir.), Miramax.

References

Berger, Arthur Asa (1991). Media Analysis Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Branston, Gill and Sta¤ord, Roy (1996). The Media Student’s Handbook. London:

Routledge.

Brent, Joseph (1998). Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press.

Brown, Dan (2003). The Da Vinci Code. New York: Doubleday.

Burke, Kenneth (1966). Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and

Method. Berkley: University of California Press.

Chomsky, Noam (1999). Form and meaning in natural languages. In Modern Philosophy of

Language, Maria Baghramian (ed.), 284–308. Washington, DC: Counterpoint.

Danesi, Marcel (2002). Understanding Media Semiotics. London: Oxford University Press.

Deely, John (2001). Four Ages of Understanding. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Eco, Umberto (2005). I am a professor who writes novels on Sundays: Interview with

Umberto Eco by Mukund Padmanabhan. The Hindu, October 23. Available online at

http://www.thehindu.com/2005/10/23/stories/2005102305241000.htm.

Gaines, Elliot (1998). The semiotics of artificial mythology and ‘The Far Side’. In Semiotics

1997, C. W. Spinks and John Deely (eds.), 277–288. New York: Peter Lang.

Gaines, Elliot (2006). The narrative semiotics of ‘The Daily Show’. Semiotica 166 (1/4), 81–

96.

Houser, Nathan (1992). Introduction to The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writ-

ings, vol. 1, Nathan Houser and Christian Kloesel (eds), xix–xli. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.

Morris, Charles (1938). Foundation of the theory of signs. Foundation of the Unity of

Science 1 (2), 1–59.

Morris, Charles (1946). Signs, Language, and Behavior. New York: Prentice Hall.

Nattiez, Jean-Jacques (1990). Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music, Carolyn

Abbate (trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

O’Sullivan, Tim, Dutton, Brian and Rayner, Philip (2003). Studying the Media, 3rd ed. New

York: Oxford University Press.

248 E. Gaines



Peirce, Charles S. (1992). Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, vol. 1 (1867–

1893), N. Hauserand, C. Kloesel (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Refer-

ence to vol. 1 of Essential Peirce will be designated EP 1.]

Peirce, Charles S. (1998). Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, vol. 2 (1893–

1913). Peirce Edition Project (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference

to vol. 2 of Essential Peirce will be designated EP 2.]

Postman, N. and Weingartner, C. (1969). Teaching as a Subversive Activity. New York:

Dell.

Safire, William (2006). On language: New name-calling nomenclature. New York Times

Magazine, September 3, 18.

Shank, Gary and Cunningham, Donald (2006). Modeling the six modes of Peircean abduc-

tion for educational purposes. Available online at http://www.cs.indiana.edu/event/

maics96/Proceedings/shank.html.

Shore, Brad (1998). Cultural knowledge. In Encyclopedia of Semiotics, Paul Bouissac (ed.),

157–161. New York: Oxford University Press.

Vande Berg, Leah, Wenner, Lawrence A. and Gronbeck, Bruce E. (2004). Critical Ap-

proaches to Television. New York: Houghton Mi¿in.

Walker Rob (2006). Gaming the system: A computer game subverts corporate symbols to

bite back at corporations themselves. New York Times Magazine, September 3, 18.

Elliot Gaines (b. 1950) is associate professor at Wright State University Department of

Communication [email protected]. His research interests include communication,

semiotics, and media. His publications include ‘The semiotics of media images from Indepen-

dence Day and September 11, 2001’ (2001); ‘Truth, semiotics, and the necessary ambiguity of

communication’ (2003); ‘Interpreting India, identity, and media from the field: Exploring the

communicative nature of the exotic other’ (2005); and ‘Communication and the semiotics of

space’ (2006).




Documents

Media literacy and semiotics: Toward a future taxonomy of meaning