![\"800px-Led_traffic_lights\"](\"http:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Led_traffic_lights.jpg\")
<\/a> LED Traffic Lights from Wikimedia Commons, Petey21[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIf semantics<\/strong> is the \u2018how\u2019 of semiotics, concerned with the relationship between signifier and signified, how might we read semantically the traffic light? We might read red as stop, and green as go.\r\n\r\nIf syntactics<\/strong> is the formal relationship between signs in a sign system, then how might we read the syntax of traffic lights? \u00a0We might see the relationships between red, amber, and green as three parts of a sign system that also refer to other sign systems (such as white lines on the road, or the shape of a stop sign). \u00a0These sign relationship then make the structure of traffic lights as a sign system.\r\n\r\nAnd finally, if pragmatics<\/strong> is the relationship between sign and reader, how might we pragmatically read the traffic light? \u00a0If the light is red, for example, we know to stop.\r\n\r\nThe last useful concept from basic semiotics that is worth mentioning is the idea of syntactic indeterminacy (Messaris,\u00a0 1994). \u00a0Syntactics is the formal relationship between signs and sign systems. \u00a0But as we\u2019ve noted, sign systems are constantly changing and evolving, with the arbitrariness of the relationship between signifier and signified creating a kind of \u2018wriggle room\u2019 for meaning to change and evolve within context. \u00a0This flexibility in meaning creates space where a sign that means one thing to me might mean something slightly or significantly different to you. \u00a0Very savvy advertisers often exploit this syntactic indeterminacy to encourage audiences to draw their own meanings from a number of possible interpretations, or to imply rather than overtly state a message (which may turn off the ad's target audience), as this classic New Zealand ad for 'Instant Kiwi' lottery products demonstrates<\/a>.\r\n\r\nWe each develop different interpretations of advertisements, or any set of signs, based on our own experience, interpretation and frame of reference. \u00a0One way to think about the interplay of these factors when looking at signs is to use a semiotic triangle (Ogden and Richards, 1923).\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_359\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"300\"]<\/a> Ogden and Richards (1923) The Meaning of Meaning[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThere are a number of different versions of this triangle, and you will sometimes see different labels used at each of the points of the triangle (though they might be a different points, they are the same in relation to each other). \u00a0But generally speaking, there are three main points to the triangle. The first point is the reference<\/em>, the second is the sign<\/em> (or sometimes the expression), and the third is the concept<\/em>. \u00a0\u00a0Some versions also put in the centre of the triangle the actor or agent who makes these connections through experience.\r\n\r\nThis leads us to thinking about semiotics as part of the process of communication<\/a>.\r\nDiscussion<\/h2>\r\n\r\n\t- Can you apply the semiotic triangle to the 'Instant Kiwi' ad linked to above?<\/li>\r\n\t
- What is the reference, symbol <\/strong>and thought<\/strong> presented within the sign system of this advert and how do they relate to each other?<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n
References<\/h2>\r\nMessaris, P. Visual Literacy: Image, mind, and reality, Westview Press, 1994.\r\n\r\nMorris, C. Foundations of the Theory of Signs, University of Chicago Press, 1938.","rendered":"
We can look at signs and sign systems in three ways:<\/p>\n
\n- Semantics<\/strong> \u2013 this is the \u2018how\u2019 of semiotics, and is concerned with this relationship between a signified and signifier \u2013 the sign and what it stands in for.<\/li>\n
- Syntactics<\/strong> \u2013 this refers to structural relations. \u00a0One structural relation in language is grammar, but syntactics in semiotics refers to the formal relationship between signs that lets them build into sign systems.<\/li>\n
- Pragmatics<\/strong> \u2013 pragmatics, according to Morris (Morris, 1938), is the relationship of sign to the person reading or understanding that sign.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
To explore this, lets look at a very familiar yet very arbitrary sign system \u2013 traffic lights.<\/p>\n![\"800px-Led_traffic_lights\"](\"http:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/mediastudies101\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2014\/02\/800px-led_traffic_lights.jpg\")
<\/a>LED Traffic Lights from Wikimedia Commons, Petey21<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIf semantics<\/strong> is the \u2018how\u2019 of semiotics, concerned with the relationship between signifier and signified, how might we read semantically the traffic light? We might read red as stop, and green as go.<\/p>\nIf syntactics<\/strong> is the formal relationship between signs in a sign system, then how might we read the syntax of traffic lights? \u00a0We might see the relationships between red, amber, and green as three parts of a sign system that also refer to other sign systems (such as white lines on the road, or the shape of a stop sign). \u00a0These sign relationship then make the structure of traffic lights as a sign system.<\/p>\nAnd finally, if pragmatics<\/strong> is the relationship between sign and reader, how might we pragmatically read the traffic light? \u00a0If the light is red, for example, we know to stop.<\/p>\nThe last useful concept from basic semiotics that is worth mentioning is the idea of syntactic indeterminacy (Messaris,\u00a0 1994). \u00a0Syntactics is the formal relationship between signs and sign systems. \u00a0But as we\u2019ve noted, sign systems are constantly changing and evolving, with the arbitrariness of the relationship between signifier and signified creating a kind of \u2018wriggle room\u2019 for meaning to change and evolve within context. \u00a0This flexibility in meaning creates space where a sign that means one thing to me might mean something slightly or significantly different to you. \u00a0Very savvy advertisers often exploit this syntactic indeterminacy to encourage audiences to draw their own meanings from a number of possible interpretations, or to imply rather than overtly state a message (which may turn off the ad’s target audience), as this classic New Zealand ad for ‘Instant Kiwi’ lottery products demonstrates<\/a>.<\/p>\nWe each develop different interpretations of advertisements, or any set of signs, based on our own experience, interpretation and frame of reference. \u00a0One way to think about the interplay of these factors when looking at signs is to use a semiotic triangle (Ogden and Richards, 1923).<\/p>\n![\"out](\"http:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/mediastudies101\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/20\/2014\/02\/ogden_semiotic_triangle.png\")
<\/a>Ogden and Richards (1923) The Meaning of Meaning<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThere are a number of different versions of this triangle, and you will sometimes see different labels used at each of the points of the triangle (though they might be a different points, they are the same in relation to each other). \u00a0But generally speaking, there are three main points to the triangle. The first point is the reference<\/em>, the second is the sign<\/em> (or sometimes the expression), and the third is the concept<\/em>. \u00a0\u00a0Some versions also put in the centre of the triangle the actor or agent who makes these connections through experience.<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\r\nMessaris, P. Visual Literacy: Image, mind, and reality, Westview Press, 1994.\r\n\r\nMorris, C. Foundations of the Theory of Signs, University of Chicago Press, 1938.","rendered":"
We can look at signs and sign systems in three ways:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Semantics<\/strong> \u2013 this is the \u2018how\u2019 of semiotics, and is concerned with this relationship between a signified and signifier \u2013 the sign and what it stands in for.<\/li>\n
- Syntactics<\/strong> \u2013 this refers to structural relations. \u00a0One structural relation in language is grammar, but syntactics in semiotics refers to the formal relationship between signs that lets them build into sign systems.<\/li>\n
- Pragmatics<\/strong> \u2013 pragmatics, according to Morris (Morris, 1938), is the relationship of sign to the person reading or understanding that sign.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
To explore this, lets look at a very familiar yet very arbitrary sign system \u2013 traffic lights.<\/p>\n
<\/a>LED Traffic Lights from Wikimedia Commons, Petey21<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n If semantics<\/strong> is the \u2018how\u2019 of semiotics, concerned with the relationship between signifier and signified, how might we read semantically the traffic light? We might read red as stop, and green as go.<\/p>\n
If syntactics<\/strong> is the formal relationship between signs in a sign system, then how might we read the syntax of traffic lights? \u00a0We might see the relationships between red, amber, and green as three parts of a sign system that also refer to other sign systems (such as white lines on the road, or the shape of a stop sign). \u00a0These sign relationship then make the structure of traffic lights as a sign system.<\/p>\n
And finally, if pragmatics<\/strong> is the relationship between sign and reader, how might we pragmatically read the traffic light? \u00a0If the light is red, for example, we know to stop.<\/p>\n
The last useful concept from basic semiotics that is worth mentioning is the idea of syntactic indeterminacy (Messaris,\u00a0 1994). \u00a0Syntactics is the formal relationship between signs and sign systems. \u00a0But as we\u2019ve noted, sign systems are constantly changing and evolving, with the arbitrariness of the relationship between signifier and signified creating a kind of \u2018wriggle room\u2019 for meaning to change and evolve within context. \u00a0This flexibility in meaning creates space where a sign that means one thing to me might mean something slightly or significantly different to you. \u00a0Very savvy advertisers often exploit this syntactic indeterminacy to encourage audiences to draw their own meanings from a number of possible interpretations, or to imply rather than overtly state a message (which may turn off the ad’s target audience), as this classic New Zealand ad for ‘Instant Kiwi’ lottery products demonstrates<\/a>.<\/p>\n
We each develop different interpretations of advertisements, or any set of signs, based on our own experience, interpretation and frame of reference. \u00a0One way to think about the interplay of these factors when looking at signs is to use a semiotic triangle (Ogden and Richards, 1923).<\/p>\n
<\/a>Ogden and Richards (1923) The Meaning of Meaning<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n There are a number of different versions of this triangle, and you will sometimes see different labels used at each of the points of the triangle (though they might be a different points, they are the same in relation to each other). \u00a0But generally speaking, there are three main points to the triangle. The first point is the reference<\/em>, the second is the sign<\/em> (or sometimes the expression), and the third is the concept<\/em>. \u00a0\u00a0Some versions also put in the centre of the triangle the actor or agent who makes these connections through experience.<\/p>\n
- Syntactics<\/strong> \u2013 this refers to structural relations. \u00a0One structural relation in language is grammar, but syntactics in semiotics refers to the formal relationship between signs that lets them build into sign systems.<\/li>\n