1Mai Hansford 2013! 1!the semiotic landscape!Ma.docx

1
Mai Hansford 2013! 1!
the semiotic
landscape!
Two domains of meaning:!
!
• the world itself!
!
• the languages people use to
describe it (their perceptions,
responses and actions)!
We donʼt find meaning, we make it!
!
polysemy (has been the undoing of
structural semiotics)!
!
but . . . generally, we are not entirely
free to make any meaning we want!
!
Why study semiotics?!

“These institutions and processes
[ public communication practices]
are among the most important
large-scale creators and
managers of what can be
analysed as the semiotic
facilitation or obfuscation of
reality.” (Mackey 2011 p. 115)!
“Campaign message designers
are, in effect, creating structures
of meanings within a message,
providing an ideology within the
message to shape desire for the
product” (Moffitt 2011, p. 25)!
Mai Hansford 2013! 5! Mai Hansford 2013! 6!
!
Semiotics/semiology!
!
. . . the life of signs within society!
2
“meaning is based on relationships”! !
! ! (Berger 2000, p. 43)!
!

!
signs are anything that can be made to
“stand for” something else!
!
Semiotic resources: “the actions and
artefacts we use to communicate” !
! ! ! ! (van Leeuwen 2005, p. 3)!
“semiotics provides a set of tools
for identifying the signs of!
any text, or in other words, for
finding the cultural meanings of
one item or several words or
visuals used together” (Moffitt 2011, p.
24)!
Semiotic field:!
zoology!
olfactory signs!
tactile communication!
paralinguistics!
medicine!
kinesics and proxemics!
musical codes!
formalised languages!
written languages!
natural languages!
visual communication!

systems of objects!
plot structures!
text theory!
cultural codes!
aesthetic texts!
mass communication!
rhetoric!
anthropology !
psychoanalysis !
! ! (Eco 1972)!
semiologists look at signs as “things
in themselves” and as “signs” or
indicators of other things/notions!
!
however, these things or notions are
subject to interpretation and debate!!
“. . . semiological analysis
presupposes a thorough
knowledge of the originating
culture and of the particular
genre at issue” !
! ! ! (McQuail 2005, p. 349)!
!
The social nature of
meaning systems: !
• “share” common codes!

!
• involve emotional and affective relations!
!
!Polysemy challenges assumption of
necessary correspondence!
!
!we are all readers, producers and
reproducers of signs or semiotic
resources!
!
!Hallʼs distinct processes!
3
Questions that arise:!
1. What is the text to be
interpreted?!
!isolating a single text for analysis
is problematic!
!

every text is an intertext !
! ! ! !(Kristeva 1966, 1980)!
!
texts - and signs - are encountered in
the context of greater signifying systems!
! ! ! ! (Long & Wall 2009)!
2. !What kinds of things do people
!expect a text to provide or do?!
!Commonly: !
!
• meaning!
!questions about the political and
!social organisation or
representation of reality!
!
and !
!
• models for behaviour!
3. !How does a text “produce” the
particular meaning we assume
it has?!

!
!Semiotics examines the process
of meaning-making!
!
!Relative power!
the “how” question . . .!
Semiotics . . . “is a way of
analysing meanings by looking at
the signs . . . which communicate
meaning” ! ! ! (Bignell 2002, p. 1)!
!
Semiotic dimensions:!
Syntactics: grammatical rules!
!
Semantics: aspects of meaning
expressed in a language!
!
Pragmatics: relation of signs to
interpreters!
4
Cobley, P. (ed.) 1996, The communication theory reader,

Routledge, London & New York!
Part I: Signification!
Theories of the sign!
Ferdinand de Saussure The object of linguistics!
Charles Sanders Peirce A guess at the riddle!
!
The sign in use!
Émile Benveniste The nature of the linguistic sign!
V.N. Vološinov Toward a Marxist philosophy of language!
M.A.K. Halliday ʻIntroductionʼ Language as social semiotic:
the social
interpretation of language and meaning!
!
Part II: ʻMeaning”: Linguistic and visual!
Linguistic ʻmeaningʼ!
Ferdinand de Saussure Linguistic value!
Steven Cohan & Linda M. Shires Theorizing language!
!
Visual ʻmeaningʼ!
Roland Barthes Denotation and connotation!
Roland Barthes The photographic message!
Umberto Eco How culture conditions the colours we see!
Gunther Kress & Theo van Leeuwen Reading images!
Part III: The sign in post-structuralism!
Signifiers and subjects!
Jacques Lacan The agency of the letter in the unconscious!
Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen Liguisteries!
!
The play of différance!
Jacques Derrida Semiology and grammatology: interview with
Julia Kristeva!
Brian Torode Textuality, sexuality, economy!

!
Sign users and speech acts!
Saying and doing!
J.L Austin Performatives and constatives!
John Searle What is a speech act?!
!
Person, process and practice!
Émile Benveniste The nature of pronouns!
Roman Jakobson Shifters and verbal categories!
Gunther Kress Social processes and linguistic change: time
and history in
language!
!
Part V: The inscription of the audience in the message!
Cinematic inscription!
Émile Benveniste Relationships of person in the verb!
Nick Browne The spectator-in-the-text: the rhetoric of
Stagecoach!
Stephen Heath Narrative space!
!
Bodies, subjects and social context!
M.A.K. Halliday Language as social semiotic!
Alan Luke The body literate: discourse and inscription in early
literacy training!
Judith Williamson . . . But I know what I like: the function of
ʻartʼ in advertising!
!
Part VI: Readers and reading!
Interpretation, ideation and the reading process!
Stanley Fish Why no oneʼs afraid of Wolfgang Iser!
Wolfgang Iser Talk like whales: a reply to Stanley Fish!
!
The study of readersʼ meanings!

Jerry Palmer The act of reading and the reader!
Janice A. Radway Reading the romance!
Ien Ang Dallas between reality and fiction!
!
!
The diversity of the field!
We could examine. . .
• Theories of the sign
• The sign in use
• Visual and linguistic ‘meaning’
• The sign in post-structuralism
• Sign users and speech acts
• Readers/interpreters of signs and the
process of interpreting
• The positioning or inscription of the
‘reader’ in the text
Four important

foundational approaches!
1. de Saussure!
2. Peirce!
3. Eco!
4. Barthes!
Structuralist! Poststructuralist! Postmodernist!
De Saussure! Nietzsche! Lyotard!
Levi-Strauss! Derrida! Baudrillard!
Peirce! Lacan! Gottdeiner!
Foucault!
Barthes!
Eco!
Poster!
Social semiotics! Visual semiotics!
5
1. de Saussure!
Linguist!
!
reconceived linguistics along semiotic
lines!

!
“Language is a system of signs that
express ideas” ! ! !
! ! ! ! (Silverman 1983, p. 4)!
!
!
Saussure predicted that semiotic
principles would be applied to all
aspects of culture!
!
Terms!
• Sign!
!“anything taken by social convention to
represent something else” (McQuail 1987, p. 186)!
!
• Signifier!
!the physical properties or aspects of a sign
that lead them to be perceived in some way!
!
• Signified!
!the idea or mental concept conjured up by
our perception of the signifier!
!

• Signification!
!the relationship between these three
elements in the process of meaning-making!
de Saussure claims relationship
between the signifier and signified
is arbitrary:!
!
that is . . .!
!
we have to be taught the meaning
of signs (like a language)!
Texts generate meanings in
two ways:!
1. by the order in which events happen
(the syntagmatic structure) !
!and !
2. by the hidden oppositions found in
the text (the paradigmatic
structure) !
6

2. Charles Peirce!
Philosopher!
!
Two interlocking triads:!
!
1. Sign-interpretant-object!
2. Icon-index-symbol!
!
Peirceʼs icon/index/symbol trichotomy!
Sign Icon Index Symbol
Signify by: !Resemblance !Causal !Convention!
! !connection!
!
Examples: !Photos or images !Smoke/fire !Words!
!
!Statues of !Symptom/ !Gestures!
!well-known figures !disease!
! !(red spots/!
! !measles)!
!
!Photo of!
!Rudd!
!
Process: !Can see !Can figure !Must learn!

3. Eco!
Eco developed a theory of semiotics from
Peirce !
!
He investigated!
!codes or rules about signification!
!how we produce and reproduce signs!
!
Back and forth between stability in coding
structure and variations in cultural practices!
Elements that go together to create a
system of representation (signs➔codes)!
1. !conditions or objects
in the world!
!
2. signs !
!
3. a repertoire of
responses !
!
4. a set of
correspondence rules

Different ways we use signs!
1. Thereʼs an existing code people
recognise eg. symptoms for an illness !
2. Use the object itself eg. hold up
empty bottle to show someone you want
another!
3. Arbitrary signs in combination
eg. language!
4. New ways to put things together
to create a new “code”
eg. conceptual or symbolic art!
(adapted from Eco, 1972)!
7
“Not only is meaning
cultural, but cultures are
semiotic” !
(Littlejohn 1996, p. 55)!
4. Roland Barthes!

applied semiotics to cultural practices !
!
concerned with the ways signs
worked to reinforce the dominant
values of the culture !
!
ideology!
embeddedness of signs in
cultural practice!
!
!
“second-order” signifying
systems !
Denotation =
!first order signification
Connotation =
!second order signification!
(adapted from Griffin 2003, p. 359)
D
EN

O
T
A
T
IV
E
SY
ST
EM
C
O
N
N
O
T
A
T
IV
E SY
ST
EM

8
“Barthesʼs notion of culture is not
genuinely collective, but riven with
contradictions” (Silverman 1983, p. 30)!
!
myth-making!
!
These contradictions are covered
over and smoothed out by ideology
or myth, which creates the world in
the image of the dominant class!
signs and their place in
hegemonic practices!
Further developments!
• Social semiotics !
! !eg. Hodge & Kress!
• Postmodern semiotics !
! !eg. Baudrillard (simulacra)!

• Visual semiotics !
! !eg. van Leeuwen!
Theoretical movement of the sign:
!
ranging from . . .!
• denotation to connotation !
• a specific signified to one that
refers to beyond itself!
• references that are “indexical” or
“iconic” relationships (Peirce) to
“ideological” or “mythic” (Barthes)!
• structure to subjectivity!
!
!
Social semiotics!
Perhaps the closest “fit” for us in our
orientation to communication!
!
Advantages:!
• makes clear the importance of the
reader’s meaning-making processes!
!
• situates the reader and the text in their
social/cultural contexts!

When you create texts, keep
in mind that . . .!
1. texts can engender multiple
levels of potential meanings!
!they constitute a semiotic
resource for the “reader”!
9
2. texts are made meaningful
through a process of audience
signification!
!
3. “meaning” of the text is an
interaction of textual and extra-
textual factors, including the
readerʼs resources!
!
!“producers of media texts aim to
ensure that polysemia is kept to a
minimum” (Long & Wall 2009, p. 47)!

!
3/8/2012
1
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Foundations of Communication
3. Psychology and sociopsychology approachesS
:
T
H

Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
Professor of Public Communication
U
T
57022
Recap from Week 2
communication. Starting in ancient Greece,
evolved to include contemporary use
D
O
evolved to include contemporary use
human communication – Shannon & Weaver’s
information model and growth of cybernetics
T
H
IN
K
.
C

H
A
N
G
E
.
D
57022 – Foundations of Communication
Professor Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC
g p
some elements of psychology and social networks
-cultural
influences
3/8/2012
2
Traditions of Communication Theory
– the art of speaking and persuasion
– information transmission
including feedback loops noise networks

D
O
including feedback loops, noise, networks
– individual cognition,
behaviour and information processing
– signs and symbols making meaning
– experience interpreted
– social interaction, context, the
social construction of reality
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D social construction of reality
– power, domination, hegemony

Video: Chris Cunningham. Music: Bjork
D
O
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjAoBKagWQA
3/8/2012
3

Psychology
– largely internal
processing and understanding information
D
O
processing and understanding information
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D

Psychology
alysis) and Freudian thought
D
O
-response
B li f h bj i i i l h
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G

E
.
understand and even predict human behaviour
3/8/2012
4
Social psychology
behaviour in social contexts” (Craig &
Muller 2007, p. 313)
– experimental social psychology in early
D
O
– experimental social psychology in early
20th century
s’ of thought
– individual standpoint
– society standpoint

T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
Key focus of sociopsychology
formation processing
D
O
T

H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
3/8/2012
5
Communication relevance
of J. Walter Thompson in the US in 1922
D

O
g and
segmenting audiences influenced advertising for the
next 75 years (Balnaves, Donald & Shoesmith 2009,
p. 276).
campaigns (eg. health)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
concerned about media
effects

Sociopsychological tradition
D
O
1. Behavioural –
2. Cognitive – how humans process information, think
3. Biological – brain function, neurochemistry,
psychobiology
(Littlejohn & Foss 2008 (p. 43)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G

E
.
D
(Littlejohn & Foss 2008 (p. 43)
3/8/2012
6
Key theories of sociopsychology
– psychological predispositions
D
O
etic predisposition

& Cacioppo)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
Part II, Chapter 4
Littlejohn & Foss 2008 (pp. 66-74)
Core concepts
– categories for grouping
information mental templates

D
O
information, mental templates
(Wrench, McCroskey & Richmond 2008, p. 130-3)
schemata (Littlejohn & Foss, p. 199)
– constructivism (Jesse Delia 1982)
seeing’
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D

3/8/2012
7
ConstructIVISM ConstructIONISM
Often used interchangeably and seen by some as the same.
But others cite some distinct differences.
Psychological theory of
k l d
Sociological theory of
k l d
D
O
knowledge knowledge
Individual meaning making in
a social context
Humans construct ‘reality’
through social interaction
Social Construction of Reality
(Peter Berger & Thomas Luckmann
1966)
Internal constructs to learn
and understand (categorising)
External world/realities are
socially constructed

T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
Applied largely to education and
learning – two streams:
Jean Piaget’s constructivist learning
Seymour Papert’s constructionist
learning?
Gender, family, work ethic, etc
are social constructions
Links to phenomenology (interpretation)
Attribution theory

range of factors and “perceptual styles”:
D
O
range of factors and “perceptual styles”:
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D

( g )
tion
3/8/2012
8
Attribution theory
causes of behaviour:
D
O
I couldn t help it (situational)
– I went along” (belonging)
’m not good at that” (ability)

T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
Attribution theory
– he/she …

D
O
Doesn t care
can hold my drink
– I’m just big-boned
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.

D
ot o e e g t just b g bo ed
– it’s my glands
3/8/2012
9
Fundamental attribution error
Type of
Situation
Considering
ourselves
Considering
others
D
O
Positive outcome Attribute to
personal qualities
Attribute to
situation /

circumstances
Negative outcome Attribute to
situation/
circumstances
Attribute to
personal qualitities
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
Attribution theory
s (attributed causes) are often

D
O
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D

3/8/2012
10
Social judgement theory
and don’t experience personally (Sherif 1961)
D
O
be true – Sherif calls them “anchors”
T
H
IN
K
.

C
H
A
N
G
E
.
– does it affect me
Cognitive dissonance
themselves doing things which don’t fit with what they
D
O
themselves doing things which don t fit with what they
know, or having opinions that don’t fit with other
opinions they hold”
– we strive
for consonance, consistency, congruity
on this:

T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
y ( )
3/8/2012
11
Cognitive dissonance

existing attitudes the most common outcome of
communication
D
O
communication
-decision dissonance after ‘close call’ decisions
or major purchases (eg. new house, car, job)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D

Dealing with cognitive dissonance
onsonance
Ch ttit d b h i t t h t
D
O
information, OR
or behaviour (fight)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A

N
G
E
.
D Blockage to communication, OR
3/8/2012
12
Elaboration Likelihood Theory
information processing
D
O
( p g g )
(passive)
issue-relevant information” – i.e. elaborately/in detail

heuristics and other mental shortcuts
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D heuristics and other mental shortcuts
someone will evaluate and process information
elaborately (thinking deeply about it)
Heuristics – mental shortcuts

Att ti l f i d t
D
O
– trust in the majority
... doing ... ”
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
st o ogy

3/8/2012
13
Heuristic Systematic Theory
wo-route cognitive processing approach
D
O
T
H
IN
K
.

C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
Elaboration Likelihood Theory
D
O
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G

E
.
D
3/8/2012
14
Sociopsychology and messages
-assembly theory
D
O
Part II, Chapter 5
T
H
IN
K

.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
Sociopsychology and conversations
d anxiety
D
O
-uncertainty management
-adaption theory
–violations theory

ersonal deception theory
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
Part II, Chapter 6
3/8/2012
15
Information processing

-
stepped model of communication
D
O
Presentation Attention Comprehension Acceptance Retention
Change/Action
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D

McGuire’s 13 stages of communication
D
O
ation (retention)
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D

Deciding to act in accordance with information
to behave similarly (McGuire 2001)
3/8/2012
16
Sociopsychological approach
emerging ‘social sciences’
ism late 19th and early 20th century
D
O
– late 19th and early 20th century
T
H
IN
K
.
C

H
A
N
G
E
.
D
Problematising this approach?
predispositions, cognitive processes, etc
D
O
communication
:
symbolism”, emotion, credibility, etc
experience shapes attitudes)

T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D experience shapes attitudes)
– eg. institutions, systems of power
• “Excessive individualism, inattention to macro-social
forces (Craig & Muller 2007, p. 84)
3/8/2012
17
Problematising this approach

approaches accused of “mechanistic
determinism” – e.g. B. F. Skinner
D
O
g
psychologists believe that the fundamental laws
of the physical world determine human
behaviour completely” (Barsalou 1992)
rminism
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.

saying that social psychology included
situational factors – but still saw ‘automatic’
processes governing human thinking
TV commercial – approach?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1EG10yWv6A
3/8/2012
18
TV commercial – approach?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibAe8ArmvwY
References
Balnaves, M. Donald, S. & Shoesmith, B. 2009, Media Theories
and
Approaches: A Global Perspective, Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke, UK.
Bargh, J. 1997, ‘The automaticity of everyday life’, in R. Wyer
(ed.),
Advances in Social Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ,
pp. 1-61.
D

O
Barsalou, L. 1992, Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for
Cognitive
Scientists, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Chaiken, S. Liberman, A. & Eagly, A. 1989, ‘Heuristic and
systematic
information within the beyond the persuasion context’, in J.
Uleman & J.
Bargh (eds), Unintended Thought, Guildford Press, New York,
pp. 212-
52.
Craig, R. & Muller, H. (eds) 2007, Theorising Communication:
Readings
Across Traditions, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Delia, J. O’Keefe, B. & O’Keefe, D. 1982,’’The constructivist
approach to
communication’, in F. Dance (ed.), Human Communication
Theory:
T
H
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N

G
E
.
D
communication , in F. Dance (ed.), Human Communication
Theory:
Comparative Essays, Harper & Row, New York, pp. 147-91.
Festinger, L. 1957, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford
University
Press, Standford, CA.
Heider, F. 1946, xxx
Klapper, J. 1960, The Effects of Mass Communication, Free
Press, New
York.
3/8/2012
19
References
Littlejohn, S. & Foss, K. 2008, Theories of Human
Communciation (9th edn),
Thomson-Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Maslow, A. 1943, ‘A theory of human motivation’,

Psychological Review
50(4), pp. 370-96.
Maslow A 1954 Motivation and Personality Harper New York
D
O
Maslow, A. 1954, Motivation and Personality, Harper, New
York.
McGuire, W. 1984, ‘Attitudes and attitude change’, in G.
Lindzey, L. Gardner
& E. Aronson, The Handbook of Social Psychology Vol II, 3rd
edn,
Random House, New York.
McGuire, W. 2001. ‘Input and output variables currently
promising for
constructing persuasive communications’, in R. Rice & C. Atkin
(eds),
Public communication campaigns, 3rd edn, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA pp.
22-48.
Petty, R. & Cacioppo, J. 1986, Communication and Persuasion:
Central and
Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change Springer-Verlag New
York
T
H
IN
K

.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, Springer Verlag, New
York.
Severin, J. & Tankard, J. 2001, Communication Theories:
Origins, Methods,
and Uses in the Mass Media, Addison Wesley Longman, New
York.
Wrench, J. McCroskey, J. & Richmond, V. 2008, Human
Communication in
Everyday Life, Pearson Education, Boston, MA.
25/02/2013
1
1. Introduction: Worldviews, paradigms and

communication theories
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
57022
U
T

S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Housekeeping
– access, check regularly
-mail Mai Hansford [email protected]
reference guide at UTS Library
http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/help/referencing/harvard-uts-
referencing-guide/more-information
– see front table in text
– Week 2, 6 March,

7–7.45 pm @ Level 5, Bldg 10 lounge over bridge
25/02/2013
2
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
57022 – Managing Communication

A roadmap for this subject
ok at what is communication … and how it
works among humans
and views on communication
approaches to professional practice
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O

Uh oh … theory!
principles of some aspect of human experience”
(Chaffee cited in Littlejohn & Foss 2008, p. 14)
some phenomenon (Silverman 2000)
among concepts and sets of concepts (Strauss &
Corbin 1994, p. 278)
actice knowledge
25/02/2013
3
U
T
S

: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Three key elements of theory
at classify and label variables
being studied according to perceived patterns (eg.
symmetric communication)
question “why?” Can be causal or practical
on of theories – guidelines that
enable interpretation of an event and aid interpretation

and decisions on how to act
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
• No single ‘truth’ – unstable, ongoing, contested, slippery
• QUESTION, PROBLEMATISE, ARGUE

in arts and social
sciences and a culture of inquiry
Approach to this subject
25/02/2013
4
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E

.
D
O
Three Approaches to Scholarship
chemistry, etc)
– objective ‘truth’ is out there
-scientific (behaviourist)
ogy, sociology,
anthropology)
understanding humans in a social setting
– ‘truth’ is constructed inside
U
T
S
: TH
IN

K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Which is best?
Scientific? Socio-scientific? Humanist?
25/02/2013
5
U
T
S
: TH

IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Theory and practice?
(Kurt Lewin 1951, p. 169)
renews the other” (Boyer 1990, p. 23)
U
T
S
: TH
IN

K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Communication
communication
ature survey found
126 definitions of communication
communication theories
literature, sociology, psychology, cultural studies
alysed 1,806 mass
communication journals (1956-2000) – found
1,393 references to 604 theories related to
communication

25/02/2013
6
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Communication?

U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G

E
.
D
O
Communication?
– between
people
extra-terrestrial communication, telecommunications, etc
25/02/2013
7
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C

H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Human communication
(Dewey 1939, p. 385)
communication, but it may fairly be said to exist
in transmission, in communication” (Dewey 1916,
p. 5)
Jackson 1967, p. 48)
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K

.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Defining communication?
– transmitting messages?
– common, community
– to create, build
Saunders & Archee (2008, p. 5)
ing of meaning through information, ideas and
feelings

25/02/2013
8
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Examples of definitions

meaning in the mind(s) of another person (or
persons) through verbal and nonverbal messages”.
TRANSMISSIONAL
rtin (2007, p. 21):
meaning through the exchange of verbal and non-
verbal messages in specific contexts, influenced by
individual and societal forces and embedded in
culture”
TRANSACTIONAL
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A

N
G
E
.
D
O
Examples of definitions
reality is produced, maintained, repaired and
transformed”
25/02/2013
9
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K

.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Defining communication
impossible and
may not be very fruitful”
(Littlejohn & Foss 2008, p. 3)
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C

H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Key elements of communication
g meaning (Alberts, Nakayama & Martin
2007)
and sharing meanings
ial
interaction and culture
25/02/2013

10
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Communication elements
contextual processes in which people create, share
and negotiate meanings (Lustig & Koester 1993)

-verbal
n, critical analysis
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.

D
O
Communication components
Participants
(Alberts, Nakayama & Martin 2007, pp. 13-14)
25/02/2013
11
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H

A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Our approach to communication
and contextual factors
approaches
aditions” of communication –
approaches, theoretical groupings (Robert Craig
1999; Craig & Muller 2007; Littlejohn & Foss 2008)
• Modernism
• Psychology and sociology
• Cultural studies
• Postmodernism

U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Subject model
Communication practices (writing, journalism, advertising, etc)
Worldviews and
metatheories (eg.
poststructuralism,
political economy,
social constructivism)

Communication
approaches/traditions
Worldviews and
metatheories
(eg. modernism,
science)
Worldviews and
metatheories
(eg. postmodernism,
social science – eg.
psychology)
Communication
approaches /
traditions
25/02/2013
12
U
T
S
: TH

IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Our approach to communication
is multidisciplinary and
transtheoretical
– symbols and signs including language

-disciplines such as
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Rationale for this approach

concepts” (Dance & Larson 1972, pp. 1-16; Trenholm
2008, p. 23)
and beliefs that
underlie what we do
25/02/2013
13
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G

E
.
D
O
Other approaches to communication
pp. 37-44)
king)
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.

C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Models of communication
16-18)
Transaction model (negotiated in social interaction)
-27)
model (embedded in social interaction and culture)

25/02/2013
14
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Models of communication

eebe & Ivy 2009, pp. 12-18)
(Alberts, Nakayama & Martin 2007, pp. 14-17)
psychological – field of experience, education attitudes,
etc)
meaning)
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A

N
G
E
.
D
O
Problematising communication
– need to synthesise
pay little if any attention to
– traits, predispositions, attitudes, etc of
senders and receivers of messages
ences
– eg. visual communication
25/02/2013

15
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Modern views of communication
Nakayama & Martin 2007, pp. 47-57)
ativism)

U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O Seven traditions/approaches explored in
this subject …
– persuasion, messages and ideas

– information transmission
including feedback loops, noise, networks
– experience, perception and
interpretation
– individual cognition,
behaviour and information processing
– signs and symbols making meaning
al – social interaction, the social
construction of reality and cultural context
– power, domination, hegemony
25/02/2013
16
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C

H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
Communication management
-disciplines such as issues and
crisis communication, brand, reputation and
stakeholder relationships
U
T

S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
References
Alberts, J. Nakayama, T. & Martin, J. 2007, Human
Communication in
Society, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Anderson, J. 1996, Communication Theory: Epistemological
Foundations,
Guildford Press, New York.
Beebe, S, Beebe, S,& Ivy, D. 2009, Communication Principles
for a Lifetime,
vol. 1, Principles of Communication, Pearson Education,
Boston, MA.

Boyer, E. 1990, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the
Professoriate,
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
Princeton, NJ.
Bryant, J. & Miron, D. 2004, ‘Theory and research in mass
communication’,
Journal of Communication, 54, pp. 662-704.
Carey, J. 2009, Communication as Culture, Routledge, New
York (Original
work published 1989)
Craig, R. 1999, ‘Communication theory as a field’,
Communication Theory,
9, 119-61.
Craig, R. & Muller, H. (eds) 2007, Theorising Communication:
Readings
Across Traditions, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dance, F. 1970, ‘The concept of communication’, Journal of
Communication, 230, pp. 201-10.
Dance, F. & Larson, C. 1972, Speech Communication: Concepts
and
Behaviour, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.
25/02/2013

17
U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
References
Dance, F. & Larson C. 1976, The Functions of Human
Communication: A
Theoretical Approach, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.
Dewey, J. 1916, Democracy and Education, Macmillan, New
York.
Dewey, J. 1939, Intelligence in the Modern World (collected
works), Modern

Library, New York.
Frey, L. Botan, C. & Kreps, G. 2000, Investigating
Communication: An
Introduction to Research Methods, Allyn & Bacon, Needham
Heights, MA.
Grossberg, L, Wartella, E, Whitney, D, & Wise, J. 2006, Media
Making: Mass
Media in a Popular Culture, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Lewin, K. 1951, Field Theory in Social Science: Selected
Theoretical Papers,
D. Cartwright (ed.), Harper & Row, New York.
Communication, 9th edn,
Thomson-Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Lustig, M. & Koester, J. 1993, Intercultural Competence:
Interpersonal
Communication Across Culture, Harper Collins, New York.
Mohan, T. McGregor, H. Saunders, S. & Archee, R. 2008,
Communicating as
Professionals, 2nd edn, Cengage Learning Australia, South
Melbourne.
Severin, J. & Tankard, J. 2001, Communication Theories:
Origins, Methods,
and Uses in the Mass Media, Addison Wesley Longman, New
York.
Silverman, D. 2000, Doing Qualitative Research, Sage, London.

U
T
S
: TH
IN
K
.
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
D
O
References
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1994, ‘Grounding theory methodology:
An
overview’, in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of
Qualitative
Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 273-85.
Trenholm, S. 2008, Thinking Through Communication: An
Introduction to

the Study of Human Communication, 5th edn, Pearson
Education, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Watzlawick, P. Beavin, J. & Jackson, D. 2008, ‘Some tentative
axioms of
communication’ in C. Mortensen (ed.), Communication Theory ,
2nd edn,
Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 74-85. (Original
work
published 1967)
Wrench, J. McCroskey, J. & Richmond, V. 2008, Human
Communication in
Everyday Life, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
KEY TERMS & DEFINITIONS
epistemological and axiological)

UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Uh oh … theory!Theory =“An organised set of concepts,
explanations and principles of some aspect of human
experience” (Littlejohn & Foss 2008, p. 14)A set of concepts
used to define and/or explain some phenomenon (Silverman
2000)“Theory consists of plausible relationships produced
among concepts and sets of concepts (Strauss & Corbin 1994, p.
278)“Theories are explanations of phenomena” (Balnaves,
Donald & Shoesmith 2009, p. 278)
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Key termsConceptTerms and definitions that classify and label
variables being studied according to perceived patterns (eg.
symmetric communication)ExplanationThe “logical force”
behind a theory, answering the question “why?” Can be causal
or practicalPrinciplesThe final dimension of theories –
guidelines that enable interpretation of an event and aid
interpretation and decisions on how to act TaxonomiesList of

categories without explanation of how they relate (taxonomies
generally fall short of theory as they lack explanation and
principles)
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Key termsOntologyBranch of philosophy that studies the nature
of existenceKey questions:
What is truth? Is there ‘one truth’ waiting to be discovered – or
multiple truths (i.e. valid perspectives, views, beliefs)?
What is reality? Scientific realism or social constructed – i.e.
realist or relativist?
Are humans agentic (pragmatist) or determined by external
conditions (determinist)
Is human behaviour mainly traits or states?
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Key termsEpistemologyBranch of philosophy that studies how
knowledge is created – how people know what they know“the
nature and status of knowledge” (Silverman 2000)Key questions
asked:
Is knowledge immutable and absolute (universalist) or
constructed through perceptions, experiences, etc (relativist)
Can we be ‘objective’ or are we subjective – or intersubjective
(sharing subjectivities)?
Can we be independent in our assessments or interdependent?
Does knowledge arise through rationalism, empiricism or
constructivism?
UTS:

THINK. CHANGE. DO
Key termsAxiologyBranch of philosophy that studies values –
what values guide or influence thinking and action and the
implications of those values
Can we be value free – or are we value-laden (i.e. biased) in
various ways?
Do we conduct value-conscious scholarship – or value-free
scholarship?
To what extent does the process of inquiry itself affect what is
being seen?
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Positivist v Naturalistic/Interpretative Paradigms
Based on Creswell, J. 1994 cited in Frey, et al. 2000, p. 18. (1)
Grossberg, et al. 2006, p. 205.ASSUMPTIONKEY
QUESTIONSPOSITIVIST PARADIGMINTERPRETATIVE
PARADIGMOntological AssumptionWhat is the nature of
reality?Singular (one reality)
One truth
RealistMultiple realities Multiple truths
RelativistEpistemological AssumptionWhat is the relationship
of the researcher to that being researched? (How do we acquire
knowledge?)Independent
ObjectivistInterdependent
Subjectivist
Constructionist (Constructionism denies any access to reality
other than representations)1Axiological AssumptionWhat is the
role of values in the research process?Value-free
UnbiasedValue-laden
BiasedRhetorical AssumptionWhat is the language used?Formal
Impersonal VoiceInformal

Personal voice
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Positivist v Naturalistic/Interpretative Paradigms
Based on Creswell, J. 1994 cited in Frey, et al. 2000, p. 18.
ASSUMPTIONQUESTIONPOSITIVIST
PARADIGMINTERPRETATIVE PARADIGMMethodological
AssumptionWhat is the process of inquiry or
research?Deduction
Search for cause an effect relationships between variables
Static design
Researcher controlled setting
Quantitative methods
Context-free generalisations
Goals of explanation, prediction and controlInduction
Holistic understanding of patterns/behaviour
Emergent design
Natural setting

Qualitative methods
Context-bound findings
Goals of understanding and social change
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Types of theoryNomothetic theorySeeks universal and general
lawsMethod is (1) develop questions; (2) form hypotheses; (3)
test hypotheses; (4) formulate answers (theory)
Deductive
Rationalist and empirical Practical theory (ideographic)Seeks to
capture differences and diversity to provide understanding that
helps people to weigh up alternativesRecognises knowledge is
created by humans, it is created socially, is historically based,
and is value laden
Inductive
Constructionist
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO

Nomothetic Ideographic/Practical
ObjectiveScientificEmpiricalMore quantitativeEffectiveness in
persuasionSystematic/logicalCausal/linearThe truth is out
thereKnowledge is discovered through
observationInterpretiveHumanistContextualMore
qualitativeParticipation and negotiation Free human agencyNon-
linear, no sequenceTruth lies within – we create our own
truthsKnowledge arises out of interaction between knower and
known
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Theory and practice?“There is nothing so practical as a good
theory” (Kurt Lewin 1951, p. 169)“Theory and practice vitally
interact, and one renews the other” (Boyer 1990, p. 23)Theory
and practice can and should be integrated, each informing the
other
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Three Approaches to ScholarshipScientificThe ‘natural
sciences’Informed by ‘The Enlightenment’ and Modernism –
rationalist, empiricalThe “discovered world” – objective ‘truth’
is out thereSocio-scientificBirth of the social sciencesUses
elements of the scientific approach, but focuses on humans –
particularly in a social settingHow they behave in creating,
exchanging and interpreting meaningHumanistIndividual
subjectivity, human interpretation“The discovering person” –
‘truth’ is constructed inside

UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Some termsParadigmA framework within which theories are
formulated, a theoretical framework (eg. postmodernism,
constructionism)From the Greek word paradeigma meaning a
patternAs well as providing a clearly articulated and accepted
framework for understanding reality, paradigms can be
confining (Kuhn)
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Some termsModelSome such as Silverman (2000, p. 77) use
‘model’ in the same sense as paradigm for an “overall
framework for looking at reality”A more common use is in
referring to a set of procedures to follow,a mapping of an
approachA practical demonstration or visualisation or a theory
or concept“An abstract representation of a process, a
description of its structure or function” (Trenholm 2008, p.
23)Models are always incomplete because they are simplified
representations of complex processes (Trenholm 2008, p 24)
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
Some termsMethodologyThe overall approach to studying
research topics – often used in place of ‘method’ (see
below).“Methodology is the ontological beliefs that give shape
to the process of knowing (the science of method)” (Balnaves,
Donald & Shoesmith 2009, p. 278) Usually considered to be
quantitative or qualitative, or overall research approaches such
as ethnographic
MethodA specific research technique – eg. experiments,

surveys, interviews, case studies, observation, etc
UTS:
THINK. CHANGE. DO
References
Boyer, E. 1990, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the
Professoriate, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, Princeton, NJ.
Grossberg, L. Wartella, E. Whitney, D. & Macgregor Wise, J.
2006, Media Making: Mass Media in a Popular Culture, 2nd
edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Frey, L. Botan, C. & Kreps, G. 2000, Investigating
Communication: An Introduction to Research Methods, Allyn &
Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Lewin, K. 1951, Field Theory in Social Science: Selected
Theoretical Papers, D. Cartwright (ed.), Harper & Row, New
York.
Communication, 9th edn, Thomson-Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Silverman, D. 2000, Doing Qualitative Research, Sage, London.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1994, ‘Grounded theory methodology:
An overview’ in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of
Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 262-72.
Assessment
Assessment item 1: Essay: 2,500 words
Objective(s): b, d, e
Weight: 60%

Due: Week 10
Task: Write an essay on one of the following topics.
Briefly outline a public communication problem (e.g. a real
situation or a hypothetical example)
and discuss how the seven traditions of communication research
and scholarship examined in
this subject can inform practice, and the describe the
perspectives and insights that they each
offer.
1.
Public relations and advertising are often accused of being
manipulative, propagandistic and
deceitful. How would you defend PR and/or advertising against
such allegations based on
theories and models of practice that you have learned?
2.
Discuss links between the critical and sociocultural traditions of
communication research and
scholarship and how these two approaches are quite different to
the sociopsychological
tradition. Discuss the theoretical differences and give examples
of applications in practice thattradition. Discuss the theoretical
differences and give examples of applications in practice that

illustrate your points.
How does the study of language, including semiotics and
rhetoric, inform understanding of
public communication such as public relations and/or
advertising. Give examples as well as
discussing theoretical knowledge.
4.
Further
information:
In all the above essays you can use examples from your own
practice experience or case
studies from Australian or international literature. Also, you are
expected to consult wider
sources than the textbook, and you should reference your ideas
to reliable academic sources.
1.
Please include a word count at the end of your essay. The word
count should EXCLUDE the
references.
2.
If you are also doing 'Communicating with Publics' you will be

participating in a library visit for a
resource orientation. If you are not doing CWP and would like a
library orientation (highly
recommended), please let the subject co-ordinator know. To
make organising sources and
referencing easier, get a free copy of the Endnotes referencing
software from the library
download site BEFORE you start your essay and the research
for it. Endnote will save you
hours of painstaking work and should ensure you have accurate
referencing to University
standard:
http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/information/endnote/download.html.
In addition, see the
BELL Reference Guide online to learn the correct referencing
style.
3.
Criteria: Evidence of thought and research about the issue;
Quality of argumentation and selection of appropriate material
as supporting evidence;
Degree of initiative and originality of thought shown;
Appropriate scholarly referencing using the author/date system;
Clarity of writing style, logical ordering of ideas leading to

conclusions or evaluations;
Written expression free of grammatical and typographical
errors;
Neat professional presentation with a title page, numbered
pages, typed with 1.5 spacing

1Mai Hansford 2013! 1!the semiotic landscape!Ma.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 1Mai Hansford 2013! 1!the semiotic landscape!Ma.docx

Similar to 1Mai Hansford 2013! 1!the semiotic landscape!Ma.docx (20)

More from hyacinthshackley2629

More from hyacinthshackley2629 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1Mai Hansford 2013! 1!the semiotic landscape!Ma.docx