00:00:00
hi folks and welcome to this
00:00:01
introduction to semiotics there's a lot
00:00:04
of different ways to study semiotics but
00:00:06
this video will be part of a series of
00:00:08
videos on the use of semiotics to study
00:00:11
images and culture if you're interested
00:00:13
in the influence of semiotics on film
00:00:15
Theory I already have a video on
00:00:16
Christian metz's semiotic film Theory so
00:00:19
first what is semiotics forly it's the
00:00:21
study of signs and symbols and their use
00:00:23
or interpretation put differently though
00:00:26
we could say that it's the study of how
00:00:27
words and images come to have meanings
00:00:30
and put in another way it's really the
00:00:32
study of how things we see and hear
00:00:34
stand in for ideas so if semiotics is
00:00:37
the study of signs signs are just things
00:00:40
that we see or hear that stand in for
00:00:42
ideas that are not present to us this is
00:00:45
not just confined to things that we call
00:00:46
signs like street signs but also words
00:00:49
images colors and particular choices
00:00:52
that one might make when they're
00:00:53
creating images the origin of semiotics
00:00:55
is usually attributed to these two
00:00:57
thinkers Ferdinand desur on on the left
00:01:00
and CS purse on the right purse is an
00:01:02
American philosopher so Sur is a French
00:01:05
linguist and if you've heard the term
00:01:07
semiology as opposed to semiotics
00:01:09
semiology is in fact the word that sour
00:01:12
himself used to describe the kind of
00:01:13
linguistics that he was doing while
00:01:15
purse coin the term semiotics for the
00:01:17
purposes of this video though I'm just
00:01:19
going to say semiotics and primarily I'm
00:01:21
going to be looking at the thought of
00:01:23
Ferdinand doour if you're interested in
00:01:25
some of the applications of Cs purse to
00:01:28
various arguments and film
00:01:30
I have some videos on that subject as
00:01:32
well so semiotics really comes from this
00:01:34
book course in general Linguistics
00:01:36
published in 1916 it's the founding text
00:01:38
of semiotics and structuralist thought
00:01:41
we'll get to structuralism in a minute
00:01:43
the main goal of this video is to try to
00:01:46
understand how we got from the
00:01:48
foundations of semiotics in Ferdinando
00:01:51
sour study of language to the more
00:01:53
recognizable study of signs for
00:01:56
understanding our culture especially
00:01:58
mass culture that will get in figure
00:02:00
like Roland Bart simply put how does a
00:02:02
particular way of understanding language
00:02:04
that we get from a thinker on the left
00:02:06
get us to a series of methods for
00:02:09
understanding how signs in mass culture
00:02:11
convey meaning especially ideologically
00:02:14
pernicious meanings and a thinker like
00:02:16
Roland Bart that will be the thing that
00:02:17
we're going to try to figure out today
00:02:19
so what were some of the cornerstones of
00:02:21
Sour's approach to language and why is
00:02:23
his approach to language understood as a
00:02:25
semiotic approach to language well he
00:02:27
begins by defining words as signs
00:02:30
and he says that signs are broken up
00:02:32
into two components the signified and
00:02:34
the signifier the signifier is the word
00:02:37
that you hear like tree or the word that
00:02:39
you see the word tree written out and
00:02:42
the concept is the idea of a tree that
00:02:44
comes to your mind when you read that
00:02:46
word or hear that word spoken aloud so
00:02:48
signifier is the word tree as it comes
00:02:50
out of my mouth and signified is the
00:02:52
idea of tree that pops into your mind
00:02:54
whenever you hear that word or whenever
00:02:56
you are about to say that word in a
00:02:58
sentence that you're uttering to a
00:02:59
friend the thing that made soour famous
00:03:02
was his claim that the relationship
00:03:04
between the signifier and the signified
00:03:06
is arbitrary that it's merely based on
00:03:09
convention so what does that mean he's
00:03:11
basically saying that with all the words
00:03:13
in the language that you speak there is
00:03:15
no natural or logical relationship
00:03:18
between the particular sound that comes
00:03:20
out of your mouth when you say the word
00:03:22
and the idea that it conjures to your
00:03:23
mind when you hear that word and I think
00:03:26
this becomes more obvious when you study
00:03:27
other languages so in English the word
00:03:29
is tree in Spanish the word is arul in
00:03:32
French the word is arra but each of
00:03:34
these utterances as I say them out loud
00:03:36
and also the squiggles that I write down
00:03:38
when I'm writing in these languages
00:03:40
those sounds and those squiggles do not
00:03:42
in any way resemble a tree there is no
00:03:45
natural treeness that you can find in
00:03:48
those sounds or in those squiggles and
00:03:50
if you studied language before if you
00:03:51
studied poetry you might realize that we
00:03:54
do have a particular family of words
00:03:56
that do in fact resemble the things that
00:03:58
they signify they're called onas so the
00:04:01
sound that a dog makes like woof is an
00:04:04
anopia word for the sound of barking and
00:04:07
you might say that against soour that
00:04:09
these words unlike the word tree do in
00:04:12
fact have a natural correspondence with
00:04:15
the thing that they represent because
00:04:16
they are designed to sound like the
00:04:17
thing that the dog does but again if you
00:04:21
studied other languages you will realize
00:04:23
that there's always a degree of
00:04:25
arbitrariness or mere conventionality to
00:04:28
the nonsense word that we use to stand
00:04:31
in for particular sounds so in English
00:04:33
we have words like woof or ARF or bowwow
00:04:36
in French you have guow guow and in
00:04:38
French you have HW every language has
00:04:41
slightly different sounds none of them
00:04:43
perfectly maps onto the sound that the
00:04:45
dog makes there's still a degree of
00:04:47
arbitrariness of mere convention in
00:04:49
correctly uttering the phrase woof or
00:04:51
Gua guow when you're speaking to say an
00:04:53
English speaker or a Spanish speaker so
00:04:56
whereas on one view an automonopia word
00:04:58
might seem to go against Sour's Claim
00:05:01
about arbitrariness and Convention in
00:05:04
another sense it actually proves his
00:05:05
point because even those special words
00:05:07
that are designed to resemble the thing
00:05:09
that they signify still have a degree of
00:05:11
arbitrariness to them so that's the
00:05:13
first claim that sosur makes about
00:05:15
language that the words that we use do
00:05:16
not have a natural or logical
00:05:18
relationship to the things that they
00:05:20
signify the second major claim that he
00:05:23
makes about language is that words
00:05:24
derive their meaning only from their
00:05:26
difference from other words in the
00:05:28
language so what do I mean by that this
00:05:30
is a little bit harder to understand
00:05:32
well let's take a look at that word tree
00:05:34
again so Sur is saying that in order to
00:05:37
understand the sign tree that is to
00:05:40
understand the utterance tree in the
00:05:42
first place and to understand the idea
00:05:45
of the tree in the second place
00:05:46
signifier and signified you only really
00:05:50
come to that understanding through its
00:05:52
difference from other signs so you know
00:05:55
that tree is tree because it's not spree
00:05:57
and it's not Brie and you know that tree
00:05:59
is tree because it's not true and it's
00:06:01
not try and this might be a little bit
00:06:03
confusing but have you ever tried to
00:06:05
learn a language and someone and someone
00:06:07
is repeating a new word to you and you
00:06:09
say it back to them and they're saying
00:06:10
no you've got it wrong and they say it's
00:06:12
not this it's that and when they repeat
00:06:15
these two words to you to your ears they
00:06:16
sound identical but to them clearly they
00:06:18
have two different significations
00:06:20
they're two distinct utterances it is
00:06:22
your inability to hear that difference
00:06:24
to hear the distinction that makes it
00:06:26
impossible for you to understand the
00:06:28
signifier so this is what it means on
00:06:30
the level of the signifier for soour to
00:06:33
say that quote concepts are purely
00:06:35
differential and defined not by their
00:06:37
positive content but negatively by their
00:06:39
relations with other terms in the system
00:06:42
the first thing you need to do is to
00:06:43
hear the fundamental differences and how
00:06:46
the sound is made and then you'll
00:06:48
understand that it is a distinct word so
00:06:51
that's step one but step two is that you
00:06:54
also have to understand the idea the
00:06:57
signified Tree by virtue of coming to
00:07:00
understand all the things that are not
00:07:02
tree so you only understand really
00:07:05
understand the idea of tree Once you
00:07:07
understand the idea of bush and once you
00:07:09
come to understand the idea of grass
00:07:12
you're opposing tree to all these other
00:07:14
leafy green things that you see out into
00:07:16
the world now again this might be
00:07:18
confusing but I want to make it clearer
00:07:19
with an example the way that children
00:07:21
start to learn Concepts and words I
00:07:23
think is a really useful example of this
00:07:25
idea so I think it's a reasonable
00:07:27
example to imagine that for some
00:07:29
children their first encounter with a
00:07:31
four-legged furry animal is their family
00:07:33
dog so let's say you have a child and
00:07:36
they learn the word dog and they know
00:07:38
that their dog Rover is dog they apply
00:07:41
that word concept to that thing in their
00:07:44
house but let's say that the kid goes to
00:07:45
the zoo for the first time and the first
00:07:48
exhibit that they see is the lion
00:07:49
exhibit and they point to that lion and
00:07:51
they say dog and the father says no no
00:07:53
no that's not a dog that's a lion it is
00:07:56
only by saying no to the child by
00:07:59
showing that child the fundamental
00:08:01
difference between dog and lion that the
00:08:03
child truly understands what a dog is in
00:08:06
the first place the child probably just
00:08:08
used the word dog to correspond to any
00:08:11
furry four-legged thing didn't really
00:08:13
know dog but once the child starts to
00:08:15
learn all these other furry four-legged
00:08:17
things it will truly know dog as a
00:08:20
concept based on its difference from
00:08:23
similar things that it is not this is
00:08:26
what it means to say that concepts are
00:08:28
purely differential and defined not by
00:08:30
their positive content but negatively by
00:08:32
their relations with other terms in the
00:08:34
system and it is really this idea that
00:08:37
the words that we use come to mean what
00:08:39
they mean through the relationships with
00:08:42
other words in a self-contained system
00:08:44
that idea is the essence of
00:08:46
structuralism so I said earlier that
00:08:48
Sour's Linguistics was not just the
00:08:51
beginnings of semiotics it was also the
00:08:53
founding text of structuralism
00:08:55
structural Linguistics denotes schools
00:08:57
or theories in which language is
00:08:58
conceived pered as a self-contained
00:09:00
self-regulating semiotic system whose
00:09:03
elements are defined by their
00:09:04
relationship to other elements within
00:09:07
the system that's the essence of his
00:09:09
argument and that's the essence of
00:09:10
structuralism so right now we have a
00:09:12
groundbreaking theory of language whose
00:09:14
two points are these that the signifier
00:09:17
connection to a signified is arbitrary
00:09:19
and second that words derive meaning
00:09:21
from difference or their negative
00:09:23
relationship to things that they are not
00:09:26
so now we might say so what in other
00:09:28
words how do we get from this weird
00:09:29
theory of language that says that words
00:09:31
are signs and a self-contained system to
00:09:33
a theory of culture or a methodology for
00:09:36
analyzing culture that looks at images
00:09:39
and words and tries to uncover the
00:09:42
meanings that we might not be aware of
00:09:43
in other words how do we get from
00:09:44
someone who's trying to understand the
00:09:46
essence of the word tree and its
00:09:48
relationship to the idea of a tree to
00:09:50
say something like the function of a
00:09:52
tree in a Patagonia ad which is
00:09:54
consistent with the kind of thing that
00:09:55
Roland Bart would do in books like
00:09:58
mythologies well here's how I might put
00:10:00
the payoff if you have a theory of
00:10:02
language that says that one a signifier
00:10:04
connection to its meaning is arbitrary
00:10:05
and two words derive meaning only from
00:10:08
difference then what you have is really
00:10:10
an idea about language that is also an
00:10:12
idea about thought and reality so I
00:10:15
might put it this way we usually think
00:10:17
that there's this stuff in reality say
00:10:19
children trees
00:10:21
basketballs all kinds of things and then
00:10:24
we create words that refer directly to
00:10:26
those things but so sora's view of
00:10:28
language implies that it's really the
00:10:30
other way around so let me try to cash
00:10:32
out this intuitive idea of language and
00:10:34
reality that sour is going against so in
00:10:37
the first book of the Bible in Genesis
00:10:40
there's a moment when Adam gets to name
00:10:42
the animals here's the passage God
00:10:44
brought the animals to Adam to see what
00:10:46
he would name them and whatever the man
00:10:48
called each living creature that was its
00:10:50
name Genesis as you probably know is a
00:10:52
story about the beginning of all things
00:10:54
and there is a micro story within that
00:10:56
story about the beginning of language
00:10:58
and that story goes there's the first
00:11:00
man Adam he sees a bunch of things that
00:11:03
need names and he points to them and he
00:11:04
says you're a lion and you're an
00:11:06
elephant and you're a cow and that's how
00:11:08
we got language so Sora says this is so
00:11:12
wrong here's how Jonathan Belle a media
00:11:15
scholar kind of explains this idea he
00:11:17
says although sour never made this leap
00:11:20
his semiotic method showing how we are
00:11:22
surrounded by and shaped by science
00:11:23
systems leads us to the realization that
00:11:26
Consciousness and experience are built
00:11:28
out of langu anguage and the other
00:11:30
science systems circulating in society
00:11:32
that have existed before we take them up
00:11:34
and use them language was already there
00:11:37
before we were born and all of our lives
00:11:39
are lived through the signs which
00:11:41
language gives us to think speak and
00:11:43
write with in other words it's not as if
00:11:45
we have this unmediated access to
00:11:47
reality to basketballs and children and
00:11:50
lions and that we create sounds that
00:11:52
correspond with those things that's just
00:11:54
the myth the truth of it is that we're
00:11:56
born into language and language is a
00:11:58
syst system where the sounds that we use
00:12:00
to correspond with ideas is not natural
00:12:03
but arbitrary and there's no positive
00:12:05
relationship between the sounds we use
00:12:07
and the ideas we want to communicate but
00:12:09
it's only based on difference not a
00:12:11
onetoone correspondence between things
00:12:13
in reality and the words that we give
00:12:15
them now this is an idea that isn't
00:12:17
confined to sosur it's all over the
00:12:18
place many philosophers and linguists
00:12:21
and artists in their own right have
00:12:23
stumbled upon this
00:12:24
idea because I'm a film scholar I often
00:12:27
think about experimental filmmakers San
00:12:29
brage who said quote how many colors are
00:12:31
there in a field of grass to The
00:12:33
Crawling baby unaware of green it's the
00:12:36
idea that because there's not a onetoone
00:12:38
correspondence between things in the
00:12:39
world and the words we use to
00:12:41
communicate about those things we have
00:12:43
to realize that the very specific and
00:12:46
finite and constructed words that we've
00:12:49
come to use might be restricting our
00:12:52
ability to think and to see how many
00:12:54
colors are there in a field of grass if
00:12:56
you didn't have the concept green
00:12:58
limiting your EXP experience so
00:12:59
basically what sour is doing here is he
00:13:01
is participating in a broad tendency of
00:13:04
20th century thought where we think that
00:13:06
reality and language are very closely
00:13:09
mapped on to each other but in fact
00:13:11
that's not really the case there's a
00:13:13
vast distance between reality the things
00:13:15
in reality and language the words we use
00:13:18
to correspond with those things to take
00:13:20
a silly example if I utter the phrase
00:13:23
purple dog to you chances are that
00:13:25
you'll be able to understand exactly
00:13:27
what I mean you might even have an image
00:13:29
in your mind an image that's really not
00:13:32
that hard to conjure even though I'm
00:13:34
sure that you've never seen an actual
00:13:36
purple dog in your life this is a fairly
00:13:39
trivial example of all the ways that
00:13:41
language is a signifying system the
00:13:43
phrase purple dog works not because it
00:13:46
corresponds with purple dogs in the
00:13:48
world but because the adjective purple
00:13:50
and the property of purpleness can
00:13:52
easily map on to the noun dog and that
00:13:55
very simple connection between purple
00:13:57
and dog which is a function of language
00:14:00
allows you to imagine something that is
00:14:02
not in
00:14:03
reality once again reality and language
00:14:06
are far away from each other and the
00:14:08
reason this distance between reality and
00:14:10
language matters for people who are
00:14:12
studying culture and signs in culture is
00:14:15
that if there is no natural connection
00:14:16
between reality and language perhaps
00:14:19
also there is no natural connection
00:14:20
between the images that we consume and
00:14:23
the ideas that those images bring to
00:14:25
mind Ellen cider puts it this way she
00:14:28
says the important Insight that can be
00:14:30
gained from the study of semiotics and
00:14:32
structuralism is that all communication
00:14:34
is partial motivated conventional and
00:14:37
biased in other words it is not natural
00:14:40
it is a system and the system is
00:14:42
separate from reality based on a series
00:14:44
of conventions not based on a series of
00:14:48
direct and logical connections to the
00:14:49
real world so this idea is in essence
00:14:52
what someone like Roland Bart wants to
00:14:54
take from someone like Ferdinand do
00:14:56
soour Roland Bart is interested in
00:14:58
things like IDE ideology and how certain
00:15:00
normative ideas in the world get
00:15:02
injected into the images that we consume
00:15:04
that's how Sour's fairly scientistic
00:15:07
understanding of language is so
00:15:08
appealing for someone like Roland Bart
00:15:11
who's interested in culture and politics
00:15:13
but there's one more set of terms that I
00:15:15
want to introduce to distinguish between
00:15:17
the semiotics of language and the
00:15:19
semiotics of culture that's denotation
00:15:21
and
00:15:22
connotation so let's go back to that
00:15:24
signified and signify a relationship
00:15:26
once again so if I have a classic soran
00:15:29
example where I have the signifier tree
00:15:31
and the idea of the tree this
00:15:33
relationship is an example of denotation
00:15:35
denotation is simply the obvious and
00:15:37
immediate meaning that a sign brings to
00:15:40
mind if I see those squiggles I think of
00:15:42
the concept of a tree and denotation
00:15:44
isn't just for words it's also for
00:15:45
images if I see this painting of a tree
00:15:48
I will think of the concept of a tree I
00:15:50
will recognize the painting because I
00:15:52
know the concept we are at the level of
00:15:55
denotation but if I ask a different
00:15:57
question what does this signifier of
00:15:59
this tree in this Patagonia ad signify
00:16:03
Beyond its mere obvious representation
00:16:05
of a tree then I'm going from denotation
00:16:08
to connotation and for someone who
00:16:10
studies culture this is where things get
00:16:12
interesting and this study of
00:16:13
connotation is largely what a semiotic
00:16:15
analysis of images will consist of and
00:16:18
you have to keep in mind that when
00:16:19
you're studying culture say this ad for
00:16:21
Patagonia you have to realize that it's
00:16:24
full of signs the ad itself is a sign
00:16:27
but it's made up of many other signs the
00:16:30
word Patagonia is a sign that gains its
00:16:32
meaning partly from its reference to the
00:16:34
actual geographical region in South
00:16:36
America the use of the family unit in
00:16:38
this image a mother father and a child
00:16:41
is also a sign it's a choice that
00:16:43
conveys a certain meaning the gesture of
00:16:45
hugging the tree is also a sign that
00:16:47
refers to a history of hugging trees and
00:16:50
what that means within a certain
00:16:52
environmental movement the phrase let
00:16:53
them be and also the choice to make
00:16:55
those words the largest words in the
00:16:57
page and also Center those are signs and
00:17:00
their meanings come from many
00:17:01
associations that we might have with
00:17:03
utterances of that phrase a John Lennon
00:17:05
song for example and what it means might
00:17:08
not be irrelevant here the tight face
00:17:10
for Patagonia kids is also a sign we
00:17:13
immediately understand why that typ face
00:17:16
works for signifying the difference
00:17:18
between Patagonia kids and the company
00:17:21
Patagonia the framing Choice which cuts
00:17:24
off the parents heads and privileges the
00:17:27
child's perspective is also a sign and
00:17:29
the color of the child's cap which are
00:17:31
interestingly red white and blue might
00:17:34
also be considered a sign especially
00:17:36
given that Patagonia is an American
00:17:37
company and those three colors are the
00:17:39
colors of the American flag and finally
00:17:41
of course if we want to stay consistent
00:17:42
with the difference between denotation
00:17:44
and connotation we might fixate on that
00:17:46
giant tree trunk if earlier we looked at
00:17:49
say how the squiggles T get us to think
00:17:52
of a tree or the sound tree as it comes
00:17:54
out of my mouth gets me to understand or
00:17:57
imagine the concept of tree what might
00:17:59
we say about the connotation of this
00:18:01
giant tree trunk in this ad well we
00:18:04
might say a number of things but
00:18:05
importantly the kinds of things that we
00:18:07
might say are going to be a lot
00:18:09
different from Simply the idea of tree
00:18:11
the tree here might signify the natural
00:18:13
world something that should not be
00:18:15
tampered with in other words let be thus
00:18:18
it might bring to mind certain values
00:18:20
tied to environmentalism and those
00:18:22
values are enhanced by the hugging of
00:18:23
the tree and those values are mixed in
00:18:25
with a certain normative view of the
00:18:27
family unit a mother a father and a
00:18:29
child what the semiotic thinker wants
00:18:31
you to realize about these meanings and
00:18:33
the relationship to the signs that
00:18:35
they're attached to is that there is
00:18:36
nothing natural about the relationship
00:18:38
between the sign and the meaning that
00:18:40
they convey one person might say of
00:18:42
course in an ad for Patagonia kids
00:18:45
you're going to have a mother a father
00:18:46
and a child because that's the natural
00:18:48
family unit but a thinker like Roland
00:18:50
Bart is going to want to poke at our
00:18:52
assumption that certain things are
00:18:54
natural just like suur was trying to say
00:18:57
that there is no natural relation
00:18:58
relationship between words and what they
00:19:00
come to signify they exist within
00:19:02
systems of meaning and the systems of
00:19:04
meaning were created collectively in
00:19:06
overtime by human beings they didn't
00:19:08
come from biology and they weren't
00:19:09
ordained by God so Ellen cider puts this
00:19:12
idea this way she says one of the goals
00:19:14
of semiotic analysis is to make us
00:19:16
conscious of the use of connotation so
00:19:18
that we realize how much of what appears
00:19:20
naturally meaningful is actually
00:19:22
historical changeable and culturally
00:19:24
specific Bart argued that is Roland Bart
00:19:28
that connotation is the primary way in
00:19:30
which the mass media communicate
00:19:32
ideological meanings so that's it for
00:19:34
this introduction to semiotics with an
00:19:36
emphasis on the relationship between
00:19:38
semitics of culture and the linguistic
00:19:40
theory of fando Sor I'll see you next
00:19:42
time
