Another week, another vague term, hey? And so many similar words with different meanings, such as the Saussure-coined signifier (to paraphrase the reading – physical form, i.e. the written word or spoken sound), signified (the ideas brought to mind) and sign (combination of the former two) for linguistics. All the derivatives for the word sign dispersed throughout the reading by Schirato and Yell began to make my head spin after a bit; I had to keep flicking back to their definitions so I could understand them in the context of each sentence and such. Which in a way I suppose reinforces the theme for this week.
“Signs and Meaning” explores the nature of signs/symbols and how meanings are supposedly derived from them. Ferdinand de Saussure’s key argument was that meaning in language was not fixed but relational, i.e. dependent on a variety of factors such as context, culture. However Saussure did theorise that there was always a set underlying (linguistic) system that would establish a basis that would help predetermine what signs meant. This latter idea went on to be disputed – and while I don’t challenge the fact that Saussure’s model had its flaws (and not just with the idea of structure, what he referred to as langue), I felt familiar with what he seemed to be getting at with the static underlying system. There is no written code when it comes to symbols and signs of course but there are certain ones that evoke an idea most people can agree on. The colour red for example is almost universally suggestive of blood and passion; I (personally) doubt that anyone would try to assert that another colour was more evocative of these things. I would imagine that such a supposedly fixed system would have that concept recorded. Context would then produce the relational aspect, say passion –> the heart –> love. Or perhaps passion (in a negative sense) –> anger/violence/bloodshed.
Given the apparent arbitrary quality to signs and meaning it would make sense to speculate about some sort of controlling scheme that worked on a very basic level. After all, if meaning isn’t necessarily grasped in its intended way due to differences in culture, context and whatnot then how are messages communicated? I think this goes back to something I remember being mentioned in the lecture, that “meanings become stabilised” and hence predictable to some extent – what we have come to recognise as stereotypes or clichés. It’s interesting because on one hand there is often so much emphasis placed on breaking such stereotypes, such as in gender politics – the signifier “woman” is raised in the article as a prime example of an idea that relies on context (and is perhaps viewed from too much historical perspective) to acquire meaning. But continuing my point from before that – we don’t often think or realise that stereotypes are on some level, crucial to broadcasting. The following advert, while humorous and cleverly done, clearly illustrates “Australian” stereotypes of men and beer:
The collective idea that can be gathered from Marxist linguist Volosinov’s propositions about signs and meaning make sense: signs can adapt and change, and meanings depend on context, including historical context as I briefly touched on before. Schirato and Yell’s final contention incorporates notions from both models. Meanings are relational, as is the interpretation of a signifier, and the way in which meaning is produced is dependent on societal and cultural beliefs and knowledge.
Tags: Fiona Chong
