RSSSocial Semiotics: Key Figures, New Directions
Nov 05
AUTHOR: Thomas Hestbaek Andersen
AUTHOR: Morten Boeriis
AUTHOR: Eva Maagerø
AUTHOR: Elise Seip Tonnessen
TITLE: Social Semiotics
SUBTITLE: Key Figures, New Directions
PUBLISHER: Routledge (Taylor and Francis)
YEAR: 2015
REVIEWER: Weimin Toh, National University of Singapore
Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry
SUMMARY
This book is a collection of interviews conducted with five key figures in the
field of social semiotics. The five scholars interviewed are Christian M.I.M.
Matthiessen, Jim R. Martin, Gunther Kress, Theo van Leeuwen and Jay Lemke.
These scholars have taken Halliday’s concept of social semiotics and developed
it further in various directions. Based on their background, research purpose
and research areas, they have created their own original contributions to
theory and practice. The book consolidates the thoughts of the five scholars
through their interviews and highlights the similarities and differences
between their perspectives and M.A.K. Halliday’s original concept of social
semiotics. The book is well structured into three main components. The first
component, which includes the introduction, serves as a framing chapter for
the book. The second component includes the interviews with the five scholars.
And the final component consists of the concluding chapter, which serves as a
cohesive link for the interviews through the discussion of the central themes
common to each of the interviews.
The book focuses on the qualitative instead of quantitative analysis of the
lived experiences of the interviewees and how their background informs their
various perspectives in social semiotics. Each chapter focuses on in-depth
interviews of one scholar. The chapters are presented using main headings such
as “background” and “language teaching” with specific interview questions
under each of the main headings. There are both common and distinctive
interview questions for the scholars. Common interview questions include, for
instance, asking the scholars for their definitions of key terms such as
“mode”, “meaning”, “context”, “multimodality” and so on. These interview
questions serve as a cohesive thread to not only bind the different interviews
together but also highlight the different perspectives that the scholars take
in social semiotics. There are also distinctive questions asked for each of
the scholars which highlight their unique contributions. For instance, some of
the interview questions for Jim R. Martin focus on appraisal whereas some
unique questions for Jay Lemke focus on the concept of “meta-redundancy” which
he brings from his science background.
In Chapter 1, “Introduction” provides the theoretical context for the
interviews conducted in the later chapters. The authors provide a concise
introduction to M.A.K. Halliday’s social semiotics. As the main aim of the
book is to present and discuss how the five scholars redefined and reshaped
several of Halliday’s original ideas, the theoretical introduction is no more
than a brief outline of the fundamentals of Halliday’s social semiotics. The
introduction also provides some biographical information for the scholars and
a brief outline of their contributions to social semiotics. The chapter ends
by providing an outline of the methodology, i.e. how the interviews were
conducted, gathered and edited.
In Chapter 2, “Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen”, the interview starts by asking
for the scholar’s background. The background of the scholar highlights how he
was introduced to systemics or social semiotics. The chapter then moves to
theoretical discussion with the scholar by asking for his views regarding the
difference between the terms social semiotics and systemic functional
linguistics (SFL). In the first main heading under “SFL and social semiotics”,
the scholar was also asked about the cognitive component in the theory; and
the first section concludes by highlighting the scholar’s emphasis on the
social component of the cognitive component in the theory. The second section
touches on a number of basic concepts such as communication, text and code.
The scholar was asked to define “text”, and indicate the place of the concept
of “code” in systemic functional linguistics. The third section proceeds to
discuss the scholar’s main areas of interest, which is language description.
One of the contributions language description made is the ability to do
text/discourse analysis in more communities operating with different
languages. The fourth section touches on the dialects of SFL, where the
scholar discusses the benefits of the Sydney grammar over the Cardiff grammar
and Chomsky’s generative linguistics. For instance, he indicates the great
value of the holistic thinking of Halliday’s SFL. He also mentions that a key
difference between the Cardiff grammar and the Sydney grammar is that the
Cardiff grammar is modular oriented, whereas Halliday’s grammar is
relational-dimensional. The fifth section discusses context and genre where
the scholar discusses the main difference between Martin and
Matthiessen/Halliday’s approach. For instance, he highlights that Martin was
exploring context and genre in terms of one dimension: the hierarchy of
stratification. In contrast, Matthiessen approaches context and genre in a
two-dimensional way where context was extended from the context of culture at
the potential pole of the cline to contexts of situation at the instance pole.
The remaining sections of the chapter involve the scholar’s discussion of
“meaning”, his definition of “mode” and his multi-semiotic work, SFL and
language teaching, and looking towards the future of SFL.
In Chapter 3, “Jim R. Martin”, the interview starts by discussion of the
scholar’s background to understand how he was introduced to social semiotics
and his inspiration and motivation from practice. The second section discusses
the basic theoretical concepts. It aims to understand how the scholar consider
the relation between SFL and other social semiotic directions, his views on
having a cognitive component in social semiotics and his definition of
“communication”. The third section highlights the scholar’s distinctive
concept, such as “stratification” and discusses his understanding of the
concept. This section also draws links to other scholars such as Jay Lemke in
relation to his concept of meta-redundancy and how the concept is a useful way
to interpret further what stratification really means when there is a
hierarchy of abstractions rising from the phonology. Martin next discusses his
context model, where he highlights the differences between Halliday’s model
and his. For instance, he mentions that his model has two strata which he
terms “genre” and “register” whereas Halliday has one strata which he calls
“context”. Martin also explains why he stratified context whereas Halliday did
not. He was influenced by Mitchell’s (1957) and Hasan’s (1979) work on buying
and selling encounters and he took the idea of staging (text structure) and
reconceived it in terms of a system/structure cycle, so that he had an axial
perspective on genre. He referred to text structure as schematic structure and
attempted to make connection to van Dijk and Walter Kintsch’s work on schema
or script theory. In the section on “semantics”, Martin highlights his
emphasis on the text as the unit of analysis and not the clause. The following
section “appraisal” discusses how Martin came to that concept, and also
multimodal appraisal. The remaining sections discuss Martin’s definition of
“mode”, his view on the differences between SFL dialects, SFL and education
and the future of systemic functional linguistics (SFL).
Chapter 4, “Gunther Kress”, discusses his background and how he first came to
engage in social semiotics. Next, he discusses how his form of semiotics
relates to other forms of semiotics, such as that of Ferdinand de Saussure,
Charles Sanders Pierce or Roland Barthes. He also discusses his view of the
relation between sign, semiotic resource and semiotic system and his emphasis
on the functional more than the systemic in SFL. In the next section, he
defines mode as a social category. In his discussion of “medium”, he indicates
the importance of distinguishing between mode as a representational resource
and medium as disseminated technology. Next, he explains the origin of the
concept of “affordances” and how he uses it. Under the section on “literacy”,
he indicates his avoidance of the term “literacy” because the term indicates
that they have obtained an answer which they have not. Under “text and
communication”, he uses the term text for any semiotic entity which is
internally coherent and framed so that he sees it as distinct from other
entities. Text is a material thing produced via communication which is
semiotic work. He relates “design” to resources that young people need in
order to function in relation to their own wishes in society. In
“applications”, he explains how concepts were applied in learning and
institutional contexts. In the final section “the future”, he highlights the
expansion of SFL as tools to allow social semioticians to do descriptions of
the semiotic beyond language.
Chapter 5, “Theo van Leeuwen”, starts by discussing how Leeuwen’s career
began. The second section discusses his view in relation to the differences
and connections he see between SFL and social semiotics and multimodality. It
also discusses his background as a film semiotician and how it influenced his
theory. This section concludes with van Leeuwen explaining his views on the
difference between his and Kress’s work compared to O’Toole’s work. For
instance, he mentions that O’Toole takes a slightly different approach,
foregrounding the idea of rank, and linking the ranks to specific systems but
without working on the systems in detail. In the next section, he mentions his
view on social semiotics in relation to other semiotic traditions such as
Roland Barthes’ (1973) Mythologies which is part of his overall framework. The
major strengths and weaknesses of the social semiotics approach are also
discussed where he indicates that the social in social semiotics is not always
sufficiently kept in focus. He also mentions his stance on maintaining the
“critical approach” to SFL in contrast to Gunther Kress who has moved in a
direction with less emphasis on a critical approach, and maybe more on a
strategic approach. In the section on “sign making”, he explains his view of
the concept of “sign” and “ motivated sign”. He defines “communication” as a
term for semiotic practices.” He also restricts “text” to actual “textual
artefacts”. More theoretical discussion continues where he explains the
difficulty in defining “multimodality” and “mode”. Then he provides the
definition of “mode” as essentially an immaterial semiotic resource which is
abstract enough to be applicable across different means of expression or
medium. Next, he defines “grammar” as a system that prescribes how language is
used and explains the relation of his notion of stratification to Halliday’s.
The remaining sections of the chapter discuss technology and meaning making,
theory building, linguistics in a multimodal world, his impact, and the future
of SFL.
Chapter 6, “Jay Lemke”, starts with discussion of Lemke’s background by
outlining how he started his academic life in the sciences and later moved to
social semiotics. In the section on “the sign”, Lemke explains his acceptance
of the Peircian concept of icon, index and symbol in contrast to Gunther
Kress. Next, he explains his distinctive concept of “meta-redundancy” drawn
from his science background. Under “metafunctions, communication, text and
genre, Lemke explains how he modified Halliday’s three metafunctions and gave
them new names: presentation, orientation and organisation. Under
“stratification and text”, he explains his introduction of the concept of text
scale, activity scale, and time scale where the fundamental model for his work
came indirectly from developmental biology. More conceptual discussion follows
in which he outlines his major theoretical contributions to the field of
multimodality, gives a brief definition of the term mode, describes how he
distinguishes between modes, and discusses affordances, literacy and
multimodal literacy and the development of a general social semiotics of all
modes. The latter half of this chapter discusses his SFL’s contribution to
science, the relationship between cognition, emotions and aesthetics, his
study of digital media such as computer games and social semiotics and SFL in
the United States. The chapter concludes with his views on SFL today and in
the future.
Chapter 7, “Central Themes”, starts off by providing an overview of the five
scholars interviewed in the book, highlighting their similarities and
differences from Halliday’s social semiotic. The remaining sections focus on
theoretical discussion of systems and concepts. Common threads in the previous
interview chapters are discussed using central themes such as “meaning”,
“sign”, “semiotic system”, “text”, “text analysis”, “context”,
“communication”, “Sydney grammar versus the Cardiff grammar”, “multimodality”,
“mode”, “social critique and design”, “analysis in relation to design”,
“functions and applications”, “education”, and “academia”. The final sections
of the chapter touch on future challenges, hopes and aspirations in relation
to refining theories and concepts and the idea of social semiotics as a grand
theory.
EVALUATION
An important merit of this book is that it enables the reader to see the
multiple perspectives of social semiotics. Through the interviews, the book
achieves its aim in showing how different scholars with different backgrounds
build on or change Halliday’s SFL for their own research purposes and research
areas. This consolidation of various scholar’s interviews is rare. In
consolidating the five scholar’s views, the book enables the reader to
understand their similarities and differences in approaching a theoretical
field. It also allows readers or scholars to understand how a framework is
modified, elaborated or expanded based on different understanding of an
original framework, which in this case is Halliday’s SFL. The authors open the
book with the chapter by providing the theoretical outline of SFL. This brief
outline of SFL is sufficient for linguistic students but non-linguistic
students may have to do more readings on their own to better understand the
other theoretical concepts discussed during the interviews. The brief
biographical background provided for the five scholars interviewed is useful
as it consolidates the key scholars’ background in social semiotics.
In Chapter 2, there is a section which discusses the relationship between
social semiotics and neuroscience. The interview highlights that Halliday and
Matthiessen attempt to explain the functioning of the brain through language
and they also tried to make contact with neuroscientists. Perhaps this part
can be elaborated with more information provided about the outcome of the
contact with the neuroscientists if it has been made. It would be interesting
to have more interdisciplinary insights about how language is related to
cognition.
In Chapter 3, Martin provides a brief overview of appraisal theory and how it
came about. There was the use of terminologies such as “feelings”, “AFFECT”,
“emotions”, “JUDGEMENT”, “ENGAGEMENT” and “APPRECIATION”. Perhaps the authors
could indicate the difference between “feelings” and “emotions” as the
distinction was not highlighted through the interview. Is “feeling” correlated
to “AFFECT” and “emotions” correlated to “JUDGEMENT” since these terms are
used in the same sentence? Or is “emotions” an overarching category that
applies to all the appraisal categories? The interview could also have
included discussion of the relationship between “aesthetic”, “evaluation” and
“emotions”. “Aesthetic” is a term or concept that is frequently seen to occur
with “evaluation” and including the term in the interview would have provided
more insights into Martin and White’s (2005) appraisal framework.
Another limitation of the study is related to the selection of the
participants for the interview. Five scholars were selected for the interview
and they are assumed to be the key figures in the field of social semiotics.
Perhaps more scholars, such as Peter White, could be included for the
interview to diversify the insights provided even more. Since Kress and van
Leeuwen were both included for the interview, it would be interesting to
include the pairing of Martin and White (2005) to compare their views in
social semiotics.
This book is generally an excellent piece of academic writing and suffers only
from very infrequent spelling and formatting errors. For instance, I have only
spotted one grammatical error (on page 168, “interviewed to this book” should
be “interviewed in this book”). Each chapter links to the next chapter
cohesively and complements each other very well. The framing introduction and
concluding central themes also serve as cohesive links for the interview
chapters. This book is meant for more advanced students and scholars of
linguistics, specifically social semioticians, discourse analysts, and
multimodal discourse analysts and presumes a certain level of familiarity with
social semiotics and multimodal discourse analysis concepts. Overall, “Social
Semiotics – Key Figures, New Directions” provides insightful and detailed
interviews of key figures in social semiotic. The interviews are firmly
grounded in the methodology set out in the introduction chapter. Additionally,
Chapter 6 provides a good summary of the interviews conducted in the previous
chapters by structuring the insights into central themes. This systematic
structuring of the interview findings makes it a good and accessible source of
information and inspiration for future work to be conducted by scholars in
social semiotics.
REFERENCES
Barthes, R. 1973. Mythologies. St albans: Paladin.
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1979. On the notion of text. In: Sandor J. Petofi (ed.), Text
vs Sentence: basic questions of textlinguistics (Papers in Textlinguistics
20.2) Hamburg: Helmet Buske, pp. 369 – 90.
Martin, Jim R. & Peter R.R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: appraisal
in English. London: Palgrave.
Mitchell, T.F. 1957. The language of buying and selling in Cyrenaica: a
situational statement. Hespéris, Archives Berbères et Bulletin de l’Institut
des Hautes-Études Marocaines. Pp. 31 – 71.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Toh Weimin is a PhD candidate in the Department of English Language and Literature in the National University of Singapore (NUS). His research interests include social semiotics, multimodality and the study of new technologies like offline and online gaming worlds. Besides his interest in researching gaming worlds, he is also interested in anime and film analysis using a multimodal discourse analysis approach. His current PhD research work involves the creation of a ludonarrative model for video games to understand the different relationships between narrative and gameplay in video games. This theoretical model is supported by the empirical study of players.
Recent Comments