An Introduction to Applied Semiotics

Tools for Text and Image Analysis

Louis Hébert, Julie Tabler

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781000760590
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: Literary Criticism Theory
• Index: Literature

An Introduction to Applied Semiotics presents nineteen semiotics tools for text and image analysis. Covering a variety of different schools and approaches, together with the author's own original approach, this is a full and synthetic introduction to semiotics. This book presents general tools that can be used with any semiotic product. Drawing on the work of Fontanille, Genette, Greimas, Hébert, Jakobson, Peirce, Rastier and Zilberberg, the tools deal with the analysis of themes and action, true and false, positive and negative, rhythm narration and other elements.

The application of each tool is illustrated with analyses of a wide range of texts and images, from well-known or distinctive literary texts, philosophical or religious texts or images, paintings, advertising and everyday signs and symbols. Each chapter has the same structure – summary, theory and application, making it ideal for course use.

Covering both visual and textual objects, this is a key text for all courses in semiotics and textual analysis within linguistics, communication studies, literary theory, design, marketing and related areas.

1 Structural relations

Homologation

Summary

A structure is composed of at least two elements, known as terms, with at least one relation established between them. By formulating a typology of relations, we can predict various kinds of structures. Distinctions can be drawn between comparative relations (identity, similarity, alterity, opposition, homologation, etc.), presential relations (presupposition, mutual exclusion, etc.), and others. From among the many simple structures used to characterize the role of signifiers (elements of expression) and/or signifieds (content) in a semiotic act, we have chosen to focus on homologation. Homologation is the relation between (at least) two pairs of opposite elements, such that for two oppositions A/B and C/D, one can say that A is to B as C is to D. For example, in a particular text, life (A) is to death (B) as positive (C) is to negative (D).

Theory

Structure defined

We will posit that any signifying unit – except for signifying units that are considered impossible to break down, not from a purely methodological standpoint, but de facto – may be analyzed in terms of structure, and that any structure is an entity that may be broken down into at least two terms (or relata – relatum in the singular) linked by at least one relation (or function). Generally speaking, the inventory of terms is in opposition with the inventory of relations, in that the terms are a priori undefined in number, and the relations are a priori limited in number (although the inventory of relations can be partially open and can vary according to the analytical objectives and the type of objects being analyzed).

We will say that the minimal structure is composed of two terms linked by only one relation (one relation that we are describing, anyway). Thus, fire/water is a minimal structure (of the signified) in “firewater”, whose terms are related by opposition. In “fire is luminous water”, the oppositional relation is accompanied by a comparative relation (a metaphor).

NOTE: OTHER POSSIBLE DEFINITIONS OF THE MINIMAL STRUCTURE

Our definition of the minimal structure can be expanded to include cases in which the relation is established between a term and itself (a reflexive relation). Hjelmslev gives a more restrictive definition of the minimal structure than ours; he views a structure as “an autonomous entity of internal dependencies”, i.e., a relation between relations. By this definition, the minimal structure would entail two relations linked by a third relation, and would customarily include four elements. A homology between two oppositions is in fact a minimal structure of this kind. However, other kinds of minimal structures are possible. Suppose that r = a relation and R = a relation between relations. A minimal structure might include only two elements. They will be linked either by two different relations: (A r1 B) R (A r2 B) or (A r1 A) R (A r2 B); or by a single relation: (A r1 B) R (A r1 B) or (A r1 A) R (A r1 B). Lastly, a structure could even theoretically comprise just one term, linked to itself, but probably only if the two relations are different: (A r1 A) R (A r2 A).

Structures composed of signifiers, signifieds and signs

With respect to the signifier/signified opposition (or expression/content) constituting any sign, there are three basic kinds of structural analysis one can perform, depending on whether the structure includes (1) only the signifier (e.g., an analysis restricted to the versification of a poem), (2) only the signified (e.g., a traditional thematic analysis), or (3) both the signifier and the signified (e.g., an analysis of the relations between the sounds and the meanings of the words used for rhyming in a poem).

A typology of relations

By formulating a typology of relations, we can predict various kinds of structures. A relation may be characterized according to numerous criteria. We will distinguish somewhat arbitrarily between what we will call formal criteria (reflexive/transitive, directional/non-directional, monadic/polyadic relations, and others) and what we will call semantic criteria (comparative relations, such as identity, similarity, alterity, opposition, homologation; presential relations, such as presupposition and mutual exclusion; and others).

The following diagram illustrates a few possible structures. They were produced by combining some formal criteria (such as direction and the number of elements linked together) and some semantic criteria (opposition and presupposition, among others) by which we can characterize the relations.

In order to increase the representational capabilities of our diagram, for the structures that include three terms or more (from S6 to S11), we have chosen to leave the directional status of the relations undetermined (as indicated by the dotted lines). We can give a profusion of specifications for these undetermined relations, such as non-directional, unidirectional, and so forth. We can have a structure S6a, for example, in which B and C are linked to A by a relation of simple presupposition (unidirectional, therefore). Likewise, we can derive numerous other structures from the ones given here by adding terms or by adding semantic relations. For instance, if we add a relation of opposition between D and E in structure 10, we obtain a new structure, in which an opposition between two terms is linked to an opposition between three terms.¹

Formal typologies

Monadic/polyadic relations

Depending on the number of terms linked together, we refer to a relation as monadic (S1) or polyadic (S2, S3, S4 and S5 are dyadic; S6 and S7 are triadic; S8 and S9 are tetradic, S10 is pentadic, and so on).

Figure 1.1 Diagram of some possible structures

Reflexive/transitive relations

A relation is said to be reflexive if it links a term to itself (S1). It is said to be transitive if it links a term to one (S2, for example) or more other terms.

To take a grammatical example, in “She dressed herself”, “dressed” is a reflexive verb, in that the action of dressing starts and ends with “she”, so to speak; conversely, in “She dressed her daughter”, “dressed” is a direct transitive verb, since the action starts with “she” and crosses over to “her daughter”, ending there. Another example is the poetic function – one of the functions of language as defined by Jakobson (see the chapter about Jakobson) – which consists of a reflexive relation in which the message refers to itself. All relations whose names use the prefixes “self-” and “auto-” are reflexive (self-definition, self-representation, autoreference, etc.). We will come back to this later.

NOTE: REFLEXIVE/TRANSITIVE RELATIONS AND MONADIC/POLYADIC RELATIONS

A monadic relation is necessarily reflexive (a single element is linked to itself); a polyadic relation is necessarily transitive (at the same time, it can be partly reflexive).

Non-directional/directional relations

A relation is said to be non-directional when it is established either by the facts or through methodological reduction (by intentional simplification, made explicit and justified) that it is not directed toward one of the terms involved (S2, for example).² A relation is said to be directional when it is said to go from one or more source terms to one or more target terms. It is said to be unidirectional, or asymmetrical, or non-reciprocal, if it goes from one or more source terms to one or more target terms, but not the reverse (S3, for instance); if the reverse is also true, then it is a bidirectional, or symmetrical, or reciprocal relation (S4 and S5, for instance).

Semantic typologies

We propose a methodological distinction between four basic kinds of semantic relations: (1) comparative relations: identity, similarity, alterity, opposition, homologation, etc.; (2) temporal relations: simultaneity and succession, etc.; (3) presential relations: simple presupposition, reciprocal presupposition and mutual exclusion; (4) relations of inclusion: set relations (involving classes and/or elements thereof), mereological relations (involving wholes and/or parts), and type-token relations (involving types and/or tokens); and (5) other semantic relations.

Temporal and spatial relations

Simultaneity (or concomitance) is the relation between terms associated with the same initial and final temporal positions, and thus with the same temporal extent (duration). We can distinguish between strict simultaneity (1) (as in our definition) and the following kinds of partial simultaneity (2): inclusive simultaneity (2.1) (in which the first time period is entirely contained within the second, and is exceeded by it); inclusive simultaneity in which the initial positions coincide (2.1.1); inclusive simultaneity in which the final positions coincide (2.1.2); inclusive simultaneity in which the initial and final positions do not coincide (2.1.3); simultaneity-succession (2.2) (partial simultaneity and succession).

Succession (3) is the relation between terms in which the final temporal position of one term precedes the initial position of the other term. Immediate succession (3.1) implies that the initial position of the second term comes immediately after the final position of the first term; otherwise we have mediate or delayed succession (3.2). A distinction can be made between strict succession (3) (addressed in the preceding definitions) and simultaneity-succession (2.2), a form of partial simultaneity and succession.

The following diagram illustrates the main dyadic temporal relations.

These temporal relations have spatial correspondents, and thus, through generalization, they are relations of extent, whether the extent is spatial or temporal; but other spatial relations exist as well.

Figure 1.2 Dyadic temporal relations

Presential relations

A presential relation is a relation in which the presence or absence of one term indicates the presence or absence of another term.

Presupposition is a relation in which the presence of one term (the presupposing term) indicates the presence of another term (the presupposed term). This type of relation can be described as “both … and …” (both one term and the other term). Simple presupposition (or unilateral dependence) is a unidirectional relation (A presupposes B, but not the reverse). For example, the presence of a wolf presupposes the presence of a mammal (since the wolf is a mammal), but the presence of a mammal does not presuppose the presence of a wolf (since the mammal could be a dog, for instance). Reciprocal presupposition (or interdependence) is a bidirectional relation (A presupposes B and B presupposes A. For example, the back side of a sheet of paper presupposes the front, and vice versa; in fact, there is no front without a back, and vice versa. We can represent simple presupposition by an arrow (A presupposes B would be written as: A → B, or B ← A) and reciprocal presupposition by an arrow with two heads (A ↔ B).

Mutual exclusion is the relation between two elements that cannot be present together. This type of relation can be described as “either … or …” (either one term or the other term). For example, in reality, a single element cannot be alive and dead at the same time (which does not necessarily apply in a semiotic act, such as a fantasy story).³ We can represent mutual exclusion by using two arrows pointing toward each other (A →← B) or a vertical line (A | B).

If the presence of the terms is viewed not from a categorial standpoint (of all or nothing), but from a gradual (and thus quantitative) standpoint, two types of correlation may then be found between two terms. The correlation is said to be direct if (1) an increase in A leads to an increase in B and vice versa, and (2) a decrease in A leads to a decrease in B and vice versa. A direct correlation, thus, is a “more … more …” or “less … less …” type of correlation. For example, when the kinetic energy of a car increases, its speed also increases, and if its speed increases, its kinetic energy does, too.

The correlation is said to be inverse if (1) an increase in A leads to a decrease in B, and an increase in B leads to a decrease in A, and (2) a decrease in A leads to an increase in B and a decrease in B leads to an increase in A. An inverse correlation, thus, is a “more … less …” or “less … more …” type of correlation. For a constant quantity of gas at a constant temperature, pressure and volume are inversely correlated; i.e., if the volume is increased, the pressure decreases, and if the pressure increases, it is because the volume has decreased.

Direct and inverse correlation can be compared to reciprocal presupposition and mutual exclusion, respectively. That is, in a direct correlation, by raising the degree of presence of one term, I increase the presence of another;⁴ in an inverse correlation, by raising the degree of presence of one term, I decrease the presence of another (or in other words, I increase its degree of absence). For more details, see the chapter on the tensive model.

A presential relation is not necessarily coupled with any relation, i.e., joining a cause to an effect, or a non-effect to a cause or the absence of a cause. The following is a presential relation not coupled with a causal relation: A few decades ago (perhaps it’s still true), if you changed your altitude, you also changed your chances of dying of a lung disease; to be precise, the two variables were directly related. It would be wrong to think that altitude was harmful to the lungs; it was just that those who were seriously ill were advised to live in the mountains. The following is a presenti...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of symbols used
• Introduction
• 1 Structural relations: homologation
• 2 Operations of transformation
• 3 The semiotic square
• 4 The veridictory square
• 5 The tensive model
• 6 The actantial model
• 7 The narrative program
• 8 The canonical narrative schema
• 9 Figurative, thematic and axiological analysis
• 10 Thymic analysis
• 11 Semic analysis
• 12 Dialogics
• 13 The semantic graph
• 14 Analysis by classification
• 15 Analyzing rhythm and arrangement
• 16 The functions of language
• 17 Peirce’s semiotics
• 18 Narratology
• 19 The anthropic zones
• 20 A short introduction to semiotics
• Bibliography
• Index