Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Robert Hodge
and
Gunther Kress
"
- - - -- -
Contents
All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not
be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information
address Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850.
First published 1988 by Cornell University Press.
Third printing, Cornell Paperbacks, 1995.
Preface
Acknowledgements
/290~1
FEB 2 7 1998
. T!Peset by Photographies, H oniton, D evon
Pnnted in Great Britain by TJ Press, Padstow, ComwalJ
Social Semiotics
Ideological complexes and logonomic systems
Message, text and discourse
Genre, conformity and resistance
Social semiotics and the analysis of texts
The Founding Fathers Revisited
Saussure's rubbish bin
Society and the sign
How signs work
Semiotics and reality
Structuralism and the materiality of signs
History, change, transformation
Context as M eaning: the Se1niosic Dimension
Messages of power and solidarity
Media constructions of power and solidarity
Ideology and bodies in space
The meaning of frames
The ideology of \vays of sitting
Ideology and the construction of gender
Domain and antiworld
Ritual space and time
Style as ldeolom1
Style, accent, grammar as metasign
Accent, difference, community
Class, culture and stereotype
Vll
x
1
2
5
6
8
13
15
18
21
23
27
30
37
40
46
52
59
61
64
68
73
79
79
83
91
CONTENTS
V1
Metasigns of gender
Style as symptomatic
97
107
121
121
128
143
147
151
162
162
163
168
173
175
182
192
204
205
210
221
229
240
240
245
249
253
Preface
261
269
273
280
This book represents a stage in a project that has been under way for
over a decade. In 1979 we published a book entitled Language as
Ideology, which was the culmination of six years' work in developing
what \Ve called variously a 'usable linguistics', or 'critical linguistics'.
This \Vas a theory of language whose aim was to provide an illuminating
account of verbal language as a social phenomenon, especially for the
use of critical theorists in a range of disciplines - history, literary and
media studies, education, sociology - \\'ho wanted to explore social and
political forces and processes as they act through and on texts and
forms of discourse. The theory has been well received by those whom
we had hoped to reach. However, there are a number of intrinsic
limitations in the scope of that theory. We have felt the need to redress
these, in order to fulfil our initial aim for a usable, critical theory of
language. Some of these limitations we take up later in the book. H ere
we stress the two premises that constitute the basis for our present
enterprise. The first is the primacy of the social dimension in
understanding language structures and processes. In Language as Ideology
we had recognized and assumed the importance of the social dimension,
but even so we had accepted texts and the structure of language as the
normal starting point for analysis. We now see social structures and
processes, messages and meanings as the proper standpoint from which
fo attempt the analysis of meaning systems. Secondly, we see the
limitation to verbal language in our earlier work as a major inconvenience
in terms of our own main purpose. Meaning resides so strongly and
pervasively in other systems of meaning, in a multiplicity of visual,
aural, behavioural and other codes, that a concentration on words alone
is not enough. Hence we were led, inevitably, to our second premise,
namely that no single code can be successfully studied or fully
understood in isolation. So, a theory of verbal language has to be seen
in the context of a theory of all sign systems as socially constituted,
Vlll
PREFACE
PREFACE
lX
Semiotics.
In fact Language as Ideology grew out of general semiotic considerations
which were left implicit because at that stage we felt unable to theorize
them adequately. It seemed valid to us at that time to focus intensively
on a part of semiosis, on structures and functions of verbal language,
leaving the wider framework to be taken for granted. An oscillation
between part and whole has proven its value in many other fields of
enquiry. Our present book has a complementary movement to that of
Language as Ideology, and both have for us been essential moments in
a single enterprise. Without our intensive grappling with verbal language
and with various traditions of linguistic theory, our ventures into
semiotics would have been liable to vague vacuity. Without a
confrontation with the problems of general semiotics, our modes of
analysis, even of verbal language, would have been of less practical
benefit to other students of ideology and culture. We continue to stress
the potential value of linguistic theories, when released from their often
restrictive fo rmulations, and the need for linguistics and the study of
verbal language to be thoroughly assimilated into a general theory of
the social processes through which meaning is constituted and has its
effects.
We hope our book will have a practical value for people working on
different problems, perhaps in different institutional settings, but
needing to trace in precise ways the transactions of meaning in sets of
texts, whether those texts are verbal or visual, or embedded in specific
objects, actions, practices or behaviours. But though we see its value
as consisting in its contribution to various analytic practices over a
range of disciplines, that is not to say we offer it as a box of tricks that
anyone can make use of, whatever their orientation and purpose. We
base our work on a number of premises in a theory of communication
and society. We see communication essentially as a process, not as a
disembodied set of meanings or texts. Meaning is produced and
reproduced under specific social conditions, through specific material
forms and agencies. It exists in relationship to concrete subjects and
objects, and is inexplicable except in terms of this set of relationships.
Society is typically constituted by structures and relations of power,
exercised or resisted; it is characterized by conflict as well as cohesion ,
so that the structures of meaning at all levels, from dominant ideological
forms to local acts of meaning will show traces of contradiction,
ambiguity, polysemy in various proportions, by various means. So for
us, texts and contexts, agents and objects of meaning, social structures
and forces and their complex interrelationships together constitute the
minimal and irreducible object of semiotic analysis. This is undoubtedly
I
Acknowledgements
The authors and publishers are grateful to the following for permission
to reproduce material already published elsewhere: Patrick Cook, The
Bulletin (for plate 6.1); DC Comics Inc. (for plate 6.2; Wonder Woman
is a trademark of DC Comics Inc. Illustration 1983 used with
permission); D.C. Thomson and Co. Ltd (for plate 5.1); Harper &
Row (for the text of the poem 'Child', from The Collected Poems of
Sylvia Plath edited by Ted Hughes. Copyright 1972 by Ted Hughes.
Reprinted by permission of Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.); Olwyn
Hughes (for the text of the poem 'Child', from Collected Poems by Sylvia
Plath, published by Faber & Faber, London, copyright Ted Hughes
1965 and 1981 , published by permission of Olwyn Hughes, and for
plate 4.3 of the manuscript at Smith College, copyright Ted Hughes
and published by permission of Olwyn Hughes); Michael Joseph Ltd
(for plates 7.2, 7.3, from Only One Woof by James Herriot, illustrated
by Peter Barrett, published by Michael Joseph); The Mansell Collection
(for plates 3.1, 4.2, 6.3, 6.4); Marvel Comics Limited (for plate 5.2
1981 BBC); Bill MitchelVThe Australian newspaper (for plate 4.1); Tlie
Star (for plate 5.6); The Sun (for plate 5.7); The Telegraph Colour
Library (for plate 3.2).
,.,.
Social Semiotics
.,
The term 'semiotics'.)is relatively new for many people, and a number
of conceptual difficulties continue to attach to its use. Semiotics has
been defined as 'the science of the life of signs in society' (Saussure
1974). So defined it has a scope which is breathtaking in its simplicity
and in its comprehensiveness. In its terms, everything in a culture can
be seen as a form of communication, organized in ways akin to verbal
language, to be understood in terms of a common set of fundamental
rules or principles. In academic institutions today the study of such
phenomena is often fragmented and parcelled out amongst a multitude
of disciplines: psychology (in its many competing schools), sociology,
anthropology, history, philosophy, linguistics, literature, art and film
studies, to name only some of the most prominent. Semiotics offers
the promise of a systematic, comprehensive and coherent study of
communications phenomena as a whole, not just instances of it.
However, we must acknowledge from the outset an uneasiness and
ambivalence towards semiotics, in so far as it has come to establish
itself as a single discipline, which for good or ill it has not yet done.
Semiotics has impressive achievements to its credit, enough to demand
that its claims be taken seriously. Yet it has also been subjected to a
series of critiques which have a cumulative force in challenging the
validity of its assumptions and its practices. The central premise of this
critique argues that the social dimensions of semiotic systems are so
intrinsic to thefrnature and fu~tion that thesystems cannotbe studieo
iJl isolation. ' Mainstream semiotics' emphasizes stiucfures and codeS:
at the -expense of functions and social uses of semiotic systems, the
complex interrelations of semiotic systems in social practice, all of the
factors which provide their motivation, their origins and destinations,
their form and substance. It stres~_s system _and product, rather than
speakers and writers or other participants in semlotlc -activity as
connected and interacting in a variety of ways in concrete social contexts.
2
I
1
\
SOCIAL SEMIOTICS
t{
1/
Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc., that is, real, active
men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive
forces, and of the intercourse corresponding to these up to its furthest forms.
Consciousness (das Bewusstsein) can never be anything else than conscious
b'eing (das bewusste Sein), and the being of men is their actual life-process. Ir
in arr ideology men and their relations appear upside do\vn as in a can1era
ob~_Cf:i:.ra, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process
as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.
(Marx and Engels 1970: 42)
SOCIAL SEMIOTICS
'
<
-
----------
SOCIAL SEMIOTICS
<
'1
..
SOCIAL SEMIOTICS
SOCIAL SEMIOTICS
the general forms of text and discourse. Such systems often operate by
specifying genres of texts (typical forms of (text which link kinds of
producer, consumer, topic, medium, manner and occasion). These
control the behaviour of producers of such texts, and the expectations
of potential consumers. Genre-rules are exemplary instances of
logonomic systems, and are a major vehicle for their operation and
transnussion. ike-the category of 'text, genres are socially ascribed
classifications of semiotic form.
Genres dnly exist in so far as a social group declare~agg ~nfor~_es
thuaj~s that constittite them~Forillstance,-iliereare clear rules w ch
regulate the interactions among participants that are called a committeemeeting. That is, a particular kind of social occasion is established,
recognized and nam.e d by a social group, and practices are delineated
which govern the actions of participants on such occasions. The texts
which are formed in the process of a committee meeting therefore have ,
a form which codes the set of practices, refations -of participants, tlleir~
expectations and purposes. The form of s-u ch texts - whether as 'full
transcript', or as 'minutes of the meeting' - themselves become
recognized as 'genres', and become potent as -a semiotic category. Other
instances come readily to mind: intervie\v, lecture, feature article, chat,
novel. Each such genre codes 'particular' relationships among sets of
social participants. The rule systems at issue are clearer to see in some
instances ('interview') than in others ('novel'), but are no less operative
for that. The 'Rise of the Novel', so called, is a history that traces a
set of historically specific relationships that involves the position of
classes, definitions (and discourses) of gender, the state of technology,
leisure and education, class-based notions of the family, and so on.
The history of the genre of 'novel' since its 'rise' equally traces shifts
in these relations, the appearance as salient factors of new discourses
and of shifts in existent discourses. Genre therefore represents one !
semiotic category that codes the effects of ~ocial-cliiiiige, or social '
-c-= struggle:
An excessive concentration on normative systems (logonomic systems,
genres, ideology) contains an inbuilt distortion and reinforces the ideas
of their dominance. These systems only constrain the behaviour and
beliefs of the non-dorfunant m~o -far
th_ey tlave - been effectively
imposed and have not been effectively resisted. Attention to the detail
-of semiosic process reveals countless instances of contestation, where
smaller-level shifts in power have significant effects, leading to
modification in the structures of domination, at times tracing the success
of dominated groups, at times the success of the dominant. This process
is well described in Gramsci's work on hegemonic structures and their
establishment. Processes of struggle and resistance are themselves
decisive aspects of social formations, and affect every level of semiotic
.
i)
-as
SOCIAL SEMIOTICS
SOCIAL SEMIOTICS
systems. At the micro level, power is put to the test in every exchange,
and the logonomic system typically is a record of this by classifying
large areas of semiosis as 'private', to be treated as beyond the reach
of the 'public'/social. The ideological complex similarly attempts to
pre-empt opposition by incorporating contradictory images into its
coercive forms; even so, they continue to exist there, silently declaring
the limits of dominant power. So the meanings and the interests of
both dominant and non-dominant act together in proportions that are
not predetermined, to constitute the forms and possibilities of meaning
at every level. We do not assume that resistance is always successful
or potent: but nor do we take it for granted, as many theorists of social
meaning seem to do, that resistance is always effortlessly incorporated
and rendered non-significant.
Plate 1.1
10
SOCIAL SEMIOTICS
SOCIAL SEMIOTICS
11
--
12
SOCIAL SEMIOTICS