Introducing Social Semiotics

Theo van Leeuwen - Introducing Social Semiotics. Routledge, 2005. 314 lk

Selle raamatu autor on sõnaga semiotic üsnagi liberaalne või lihtsalt kasutab seda Hallidaylikus tähenduses ja minul kui Tartu-Moskva koolkonna liikmel on raske mõista miks. Sellised asjandused nagu Semiotic resources, Semiotic inventories, Semiotic potential, Semiotic innovation jne tulid õige pisut uudisena. Neid vanu mõisteid uues tähenduses oli selles teoses palju; nt segregation, separation, integration, overlap, rhyme ja contrast.
Leeuwen soovitab luua oma kollektsiooni ajaleheväljalõigetest või reklaamidest, et neid hiljema analüüsida. Minul on selleks nüüd muidugi teised vahendid (20-minutiline video Tartust, hulgaliselt muusikapalasid ja rate.ee pildigalerii).
Sotsiosemiootika seisukohast kannab see teos oma nime väärikalt - see on põgus sissejuhatus ühiskonda puudutavatesse semiootilistesse valdkondadesse (kuigi mitte väga akadeemilise maneeriga ja viiteid pole kasutatud leiva peale ja leiva alla nagu seda teevad Randviir ja Cohen).
Kokkuvõttes sain uusi nüansse teada rohkesti. Alustuseks kasvõi see, et ta jagab Barthes'i mütoloogilise süsteemi denotatiivseks ja konnotatiivseks (mitte mõtteks ja vormiks):
Denotation is literal and concrete: ‘a black soldier is giving the French salute’. Connotation is a more abstract concept, or rather, mixture of concepts – ‘Frenchness and militariness’ rolled in one. Järgneb rida tsitaate, mida pean vajalikuks aeg-ajalt üle lugeda:

In time-based modes of communication ‘framing’ becomes ‘phrasing’ and is realized by semiotic resources such as the pauses and discontinuities of various kinds - rhythmic, dynamic, etc. – which separate the phrases of speech, of music, of actors’ movements, etc. In other words, framing is a common semiotic principle, realized by different semiotic resources in different semiotic modes.

The concept of metaphor is a multimodal concept and can be applied also to semiotic modes other than language. Political cartoons have often represented politicians as animals, or more precisely, as half-animal, half-human, since they have to be recognizable.

Conformity is not quite the same thing as tradition. Rather than doing what ‘we’ (our group) ‘have always done’, it is doing ‘what everybody else appears to be doing’. It knows neither explicit codes, nor the know-how that comes from the inculcation of tradition, and requires only one thing, an antenna for ‘what everyone is doing’.

The material resources of communication may be physiological or technical. Physiological resources include our vocal apparatus and the muscles we use to create the facial expressions, gestures and other physical actions that realize ‘non-verbal’ communication. Their use is always socially regulated. The voice, for instance, can produce a wide range of sounds. But in most situations it is called on to produce only speech sounds, and only such speech sounds as are appropriate to the given situation, and to the age, gender, class and social role of the speakers involved. The same applies to ‘non-verbal’ communication.

Social semiotics should look, not just at the actions, at ‘What is done here with words (or pictures, or music)?’ but also at ‘Who does it?’, ‘For whom?’, ‘Where?’, ‘When’?, etc.

The key difference between Cosmopolitan and earlier women’s magazines was that women were no longer shown in domestic settings, as (house)wives and mothers. They were either working or in pursuit of adventure and pleasure, more specifically sexual adventure. Like other new US magazines of the 1960s and early 1970s, Cosmopolitan highlighted sexuality in a new and ‘liberated’ way. Women were portrayed as expressing their freedom and independence essentially by being sexy – and this sexiness, in turn, was expressed essentially by their choice of consumer products.