Semiotics anyone?

[Stella_Omega]

I've been on the odds with the field for quite a while, because I've had to listen to people do the most ridiculous things in the name of semiotics- like analyze the number of times the "A" vowel comes up in a novel. I kid you not! Like flaking all of the paint off of the Mona Lisa and cataloging the weight of each pigment. (thank you, Terry Pratchett)

How ever, what semiotics really is, is a fascinating and important sociological field. It attempts to understand all the way organisms communicate with each other. These can be non-humans- but the most fascinating studies are about people, 'cause of course communication is what we DO. Semiotics looks at ALL of the ways we communicate, not only speech, but body language, context, social assumptions, all of it.
So, I went looking for a good primer, and found this one;
"The shortest definition is that it is the study of signs."

Just throwing it out there

 

[CharleyH]

I've been on the odds with the field for quite a while, because I've had to listen to people do the most ridiculous things in the name of semiotics- like analyze the number of times the "A" vowel comes up in a novel. I kid you not! Like flaking all of the paint off of the Mona Lisa and cataloging the weight of each pigment. (thank you, Terry Pratchett)

How ever, what semiotics really is, is a fascinating and important sociological field. It attempts to understand all the way organisms communicate with each other. These can be non-humans- but the most fascinating studies are about people, 'cause of course communication is what we DO. Semiotics looks at ALL of the ways we communicate, not only speech, but body language, context, social assumptions, all of it.
So, I went looking for a good primer, and found this one;
[]"The shortest definition is that it is the study of signs."

Just throwing it out there

Semiotics has a lot to offer ... In the end it is all metaphor - analogy - symbol - and the like. I was not able to link -so sorry Bella - I can't comment fully.

Edit to add I would like to, yet it took me at least 2 years to get it in UNI - therefore I do not expect anyone to get it in a day.

 

[rgraham666]

Not a subject for me. Deals too much with symbols and not enough with communication.

And as with all modern forms of expertise it's cloaked in an impenetrable dialect meant as an initiation ritual for its members and to protect its power from outsiders.

So pthhhhhhbt!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Semiotics has a lot to offer ... In the end it is all metaphor - analogy - symbol - and the like. I was not able to link -so sorry Bella - I can't comment fully.

See, that's exactly what frustrates me- it is NOT "all metaphor - analogy - symbol - and the like." And so often, I watch people diving into perfectly simple literal sentences. squeezing out a metaphor where there isn't one. It gets so stoopit. It totally gets in the way of the very communication it's supposed to be observing.

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar, you know?

 

[CharleyH]

Not a subject for me. Deals too much with symbols and not enough with communication.

And as with all modern forms of expertise it's cloaked in an impenetrable dialect meant as an initiation ritual for its members and to protect its power from outsiders.

So pthhhhhhbt!

You are missing the point RG. Symbols make communication possible.

 

[Goldie Munro]

language - signs - signifiers - symbols = semiotics

all communtication involves semiotics - communication is semoitics

 

[Tom Collins]

Wicked cool...I just learned a new word.
I'll read the thing you linked when I get to work.
Thanks, Stella.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Not a subject for me. Deals too much with symbols and not enough with communication.

And as with all modern forms of expertise it's cloaked in an impenetrable dialect meant as an initiation ritual for its members and to protect its power from outsiders.

So pthhhhhhbt!

That has to be one of the top 5 most inane comments ever made by someone in any forum frequented by people who call themselves writers.

Semiotics is communication, and the impenetrable dialect is whatever language it is being discussed in. Although it is only usually impenetrable to those who don't speak the language in question or to those who are brain-dead.

 

[CharleyH]

Not a subject for me. Deals too much with symbols and not enough with communication.

And as with all modern forms of expertise it's cloaked in an impenetrable dialect meant as an initiation ritual for its members and to protect its power from outsiders.

So pthhhhhhbt!

Apologies - My comp crashed when posting to your ... stupidity. As an author (if you are) you deal in semiotics - PERIOD.

 

[CharleyH]

As for semiotics? I'd LOVE TO TALK, yet am certain the thread will vanish soon.

 

[Stella_Omega]

As for semiotics? I'd LOVE TO TALK, yet am certain the thread will vanish soon.

please DO TALK, Charley, because the thread will probably stay on this forum. but- do, please, TALK. complete sentences, preferably, that show some thought behind them, rather than mere reactive impulse.

To both you and Lauren Hynde, I submit that, instead of calling Rob stupid- and we know he is not- you think about the semiotics of his statement.

You will notice he's saying that people who talk about language often become incomprehensible.

Can you make it a little more comprehensible?

Me, I'm a fence-straddler here. I know that the study is important, but I don't think it is, in itself, a reasonable mode of communication.

 

[Dr_Strabismus]

Semiotics can be fun. People in the advertising world are tend to be semiotically savvy.

Why does Google have primary colours in its logo?

Why are Macs generally white?

Why do banks use blue in their logos?

Why is red the most common colour in National flags?

 

[Liar]

language - signs - signifiers - symbols = semiotics

all communtication involves semiotics - communication is semoitics

Erm. Kind of But not quite.

All people contain water. That doesn't mean that water is people.

Semiotics is one of many components of communication. And if I may have an opinion (and gosh, I do ), I'd say it's not, in it's entireness, a very vital part of it. Apart from the mere mechanics of recoding grunts and associating them with objects (one semiotic aspect), it is too contextually bound to say anything about anything other than it's specific culture and situation. And even thre, analysis seems awfully abritrary, from what I've studied on the matter.

As for semiotics? I'd LOVE TO TALK, yet am certain the thread will vanish soon.

Which, m'dear, is exactly the reason it might vanish.

 

[Liar]

Why do banks use blue in their logos?

One of six major banks here.

As I've said here and there, context trumps symbols, almost every time.

 

[Goldie Munro]

Erm. Kind of But not quite.

All people contain water. That doesn't mean that water is people.

Semiotics is one of many components of communication. And if I may have an opinion (and gosh, I do ), I'd say it's not, in it's entireness, a very vital part of it. Apart from the mere mechanics of recoding grunts and associating them with objects (one semiotic aspect), it is too contextually bound to say anything about anything other than it's specific culture and situation. And even thre, analysis seems awfully abritrary, from what I've studied on the matter.

Which, m'dear, is exactly the reason it might vanish.

Could there be semiotics without communication?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Could there be semiotics without communication?

so are you saying semiotics is dependent on communication- or did you mean the other way around?

 

[Goldie Munro]

so are you saying semiotics is dependent on communication- or did you mean the other way around?

Can you have one without the other?

 

[Liar]

Could there be semiotics without communication?

Well, there could be water whithout people.

Ok then, a better analogy. Lemmesee... ah yes:

All cars have wheels...

Semoitics is one part of communication. All communication needs it. (Actually, I'm not entirely sure about that, but that's nitpicking. Almost all of our communication uses it anyway.) But it's certainly not the be all and end all of communication.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Can you have one without the other?

should I answer your question with another question?

(Liar, that "cars have wheels" analogy was the first thing I thought of too- only I rejected it because it seemed too metaphorical

 

[Liar]

(Liar, that "cars have wheels" analogy was the first thing I thought of too- only I rejected it because it seemed too metaphorical

I was gonna wruite that "humans have kidneys" but then I realized that other things than humans have kidneys too.

Oh, wait. Other things than cars have wheels.

Dang, my semiotic-fu is weak tonight.

 

[Goldie Munro]

should I answer your question with another question?

Only if you want to!

 

[gauchecritic]

Well that (the first page) seems extremely interesting whilst at the same time really, really, really dull, although I shall be reading more.

One of the first things I noted was

awareness of a medium may hamper its effectiveness as a means to an end. Indeed, it is typically when the medium acquires transparency that its potential to fulfil its primary function is greatest.

which immediately brought to mind my acting dalliance, and fascination with Brechtian theatre.

For those that don't know his plays include: The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui, The Caucasian Chalk Circle, The Good Person of Sezuan, and probably most famously The Threepenny Opera which contained a song made more than famous when recorded by Louis Armstrong, Bobby Darin and just about everybody with any sense (Simon Cowell named it 'the best song ever written') it was of course 'Mack the Knife'.

Back to Brecht and semiotics. A part of Brecht's 'dramaturgy' was that the setting for his plays should be as simple as possible in order that the audience can concentrate on the text. Suggestions of costume, a shaken roll of blue cloth to represent a stream or river, a house being represented by two walls only. No distractions from the spoken word or the acting elements. In my experience it's a very good, nay excellent way to perform. Not only can the audience concentrate but so can the actors.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Only if you want to!

well, to be more serious, I would say that we all communicated with reasonable facility before the theory of semiotics was ever outlined.
Semiotics is an attempt to diagram the mechanics of communication- but the field of semiotics itself is NOT communication.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well that (the first page) seems extremely interesting whilst at the same time really, really, really dull, although I shall be reading more.

One of the first things I noted was
which immediately brought to mind my acting dalliance, and fascination with Brechtian theatre.

For those that don't know his plays include: The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui, The Caucasian Chalk Circle, The Good Person of Sezuan, and probably most famously The Threepenny Opera which contained a song made more than famous when recorded by Louis Armstrong, Bobby Darin and just about everybody with any sense (Simon Cowell named it 'the best song ever written') it was of course 'Mack the Knife'.

Back to Brecht and semiotics. A part of Brecht's 'dramaturgy' was that the setting for his plays should be as simple as possible in order that the audience can concentrate on the text. Suggestions of costume, a shaken roll of blue cloth to represent a stream or river, a house being represented by two walls only. No distractions from the spoken word or the acting elements. In my experience it's a very good, nay excellent way to perform. Not only can the audience concentrate but so can the actors.

Modern theatre staging, before its time.

 

[Goldie Munro]

well, to be more serious, I would say that we all communicated with reasonable facility before the theory of semiotics was ever outlined.
Semiotics is an attempt to diagram the mechanics of communication- but the field of semiotics itself is NOT communication.

You are quite right of course - but if we didnt communicate there would be no semoitoics