Social Semiotics

Social semiotics is a term coined by linguistic theorist, Michael Halliday in 1978 when he wrote the book, Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning ("Glossary of Multimodal Terms"). After quite a bit of research to understand what social semiotics is, I found the definition to be "The media and dissemination and modes of communication that people use and develop to represent their understanding of the world and shape power relations with others (Bezemer, Jewitt). In order to better understand this definition, I think it's important to know what semiotics are. Semiotics is the study of look/feel, of the nonverbal clues and or signals that we pick up on to give context to certain things. Social semiotics is the study of these signals and clues in relation to communication, such as facial expressions. We use social semiotics every day when we notice someone's emotion based on the sound of their voice.

According to the article, "Social Semiotics and Visual Grammar: A Contemporary Approach to Visual Text Research," there are rules associated with social semiotics called visual grammar. The rules of visual grammar include elements and structure, the position of participants, modality, composition, and materiality. Elements and structure are about the relationship between the person creating an image and the person viewing said image. The position of participants is a rule that concerns the interaction of the participants within the image, as well as the relationship with the viewer. Modality is the distinction between if an image is closer to reality, or closer to "fantasy." The composition is how all participants in the image are arranged. There are three ways to interpret composition: Information value, salience, and framing. Lastly, materiality is the use of color to illustrate meaning (Moerdisuroso).

Now that we have a basic understanding of social semiotics, let's take a look at some images through the lens of visual grammar.

Elements/Structure: This photo was taken during the Oregon wildfires less than a year ago. I have an understanding of the image as the participant (living in Oregon) and the creator (also a resident of Oregon). 

Modality: While the photo looks apocalyptic and fake, it provides more of a surprise that the image is real. Given you understand the repercussions of the Oregon wildfires.

Materiality: Adding to the modality of the image, the red lighting is the central element to making the photo look apocalyptic and somewhat wicked. The same would not be assumed if the lighting were yellow for example. 

Position of participants: Both workers are visibly exhausted by their body language shown. Neither of them is facing the camera, which also demonstrates their exhaustion by their failure to notice the photo being taken.

Composition: Both participants in the image are centered in the photo, highlighting their importance. Although the man sitting is closer to the camera, both workers are in focus in the image, demonstrating their equal effort.

Modality: The photo seems to unedited and of a real event. The realism of the photo adds to our empathy for the participants in the image.

Works Cited

Bezemer, Jeff, and Carey Jewitt. “Social Semiotics.” ResearchGate, Jan. 2009,         www.researchgate.net/publication/286459229_Social_Semiotics.

Moerdisuroso, Indro. “(PDF) Social Semiotics and Visual Grammar: A Contemporary Approach to Visual Text Research.” ResearchGate, Apr. 2017, www.researchgate.net/publication/323396576_Social_Semiotics_and_Visual_Grammar_A_Contemporary_Approach_to_Visual_Text_Research.

“Social Semiotics.” Glossary of Multimodal Terms, 22 Nov. 2012, multimodalityglossary.wordpress.com/social-semiotics/.

Online Argument

This online argument at the bottom of this blog post was found in the comment section in r/Showerthoughts. The post stated, "People who jog on the roads in the dark, wearing dark clothing and no lights or reflectors are a unique combination of a person who cares about their health and well-being and doesn’t care about their health and well-being." This was someone's response to the "shower thought" when searching by controversial.

The argument is tiring to read considering it's completely unnecessary, and neither commenters are going to change their viewpoint. I chose this argument because I think it's important to see how trivial many online arguments can be. I have a few concerns with this argument in particular.

• Improper analogy - Poster: "If I break into your home all the time to take your stuff and one day you decided you've had enough and refuse to cooperate, and I shoot you, it's not "suicide", it's 'homicide.'" I have a hard time seeing the relevance of this situation to what the poster had first stated. Because the relevance is difficult to see, I think it proves that it's a poor analogy to use and does not help the argument.

• Aggression - Anon: "What the hell is the relevance of the latter part of your comment? We're talking about people who dress themselves in essentially camo when they don't have to." This is in response to the "break-in" analogy. This is the first sign of aggression within the argument. Now that emotion is involved, the argument is less about trying to see someone else's view, and instead to prove them wrong and or make them look bad.

• Fictitious statement - Poster: "Is there ever a time when the driver bears any responsibility at all, ever? No of course not, that's why you say "accident" when it's a car and "murder" when it's a gun." This statement is false and has been thrown into the discussion to prove a point. There are many cases where the driver is at fault and is prosecuted. Examples include Driving under the influence, Driving underage, hitting a pedestrian, etc.

To reduce the number of poor arguments similar to this one, I've developed five rules both parties should consider when arguing online.

1. No rude/hostile comments.
2. Only factual statements/evidence used.
3. Intend to change someone's view rather than prove them wrong.
4. Effectively explain your reasoning.
5. Be open to others' perspectives.

Poster 12 days ago

People aren't normally jogging on 4 lane freeways, they're jogging on residential streets with a 25mph limit. If you actually operated your car like the deadly weapon it is, this wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that cars insulate the operator from consequences, both physically and via the laws that blame the victim even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the driver was at fault.

-4

level 2

Anon 12 days ago

So there's no possible way this guy could've done any better on his jog, right?

They say the graveyard is full of people who had the right of way for a reason. There's absolutely no reason to be effectively suicidal when you can mitigate the risks of encountering an idiot.

4

level 3

Poster 12 days ago

They say the graveyard is full of people who had the right of way for a reason

r/SelfAwareWolves/?

There's no reason to be effectively suicidal when you can mitigate the risks of encountering an idiot.

If I break into your home all the time to take your stuff and one day you decided you've had enough and refuse to cooperate, and I shoot you, it's not "suicide", it's "homicide"

-7

level 4

Anon 12 days ago

What the hell is the relevance of the latter part of your comment? We're talking about people who dress themselves in essentially camo when they don't have to. Ab more sensible analogy would be you living in a street where break ins happen constantly and you still refuse to lock your door.

You can drive as carefully and be as attentive as you want, people in dark clothes on a dark road are almost invisible. There's is a decent chance that you won't see them until they are right next to your car, with the headlights on. Just put on a safety vest.

3

level 5

Poster 12 days ago

Ab more sensible analogy would be you living in a street where break ins happen constantly and you still refuse to lock your door.

Maybe if the burglars repeatedly redefined "lock your door" to fit the circumstances:

• Schalge? You call that a lock? Asking for it!

• When you're opening and closing the door when you come home at night you should always check if you're being followed, give that person a darwin award

• You call that checking? You should always do a tactical recon while wearing MARPAT tactical camo, if the adversary can see you it's hardly security, uhhh, hello!?!?!

• They didn't secure the window though, you want sunlight? You can have sunlight when you're dead, this was a suicide

-4

level 6

Anon

 12 days ago

What are you talking about? Who is redefining what? Just wear a hazard vest and everyone is happy.

4

level 7

Poster

 12 days ago

Just wear a hazard vest and everyone is happy.

I don't know what you mean by "happy" but if it means they won't be blamed for their own death, wrong. Drivers will find another reason to call it a suicide.

0

level 8

Anon

12 days ago

You think the jogger bears 0 responsibility in this situation?

2

level 9

Poster 12 days ago

Is there ever a time when the driver bears any responsibility at all, ever? No of course not, that's why you say "accident" when it's a car and "murder" when it's a gun.

0

level 10

Anon

12 days ago

Actually nomenclature is shifting away from the work accident. Nowhere do I indicate that drivers do not bear responsibility.

If you’re incapable of answering my simple question, then that’s all you had to say :)