10/5/2016

LINGUISTList14.2416:GeneralLinguistics:Chandler(2002)

LINGUISTList14.2416
FriSep122003
Review:GeneralLinguistics:Chandler(2002)
Editorforthisissue:NaomiOgasawara<naomi

linguistlist.org>

WhatfollowsisareviewordiscussionnotecontributedtoourBookDiscussionForum.Weexpect
discussionstobeinformalandinteractiveandtheauthorofthebookdiscussediscordiallyinvitedtojoinin.
Ifyouareinterestedinleadingabookdiscussion,lookforbooksannouncedonLINGUISTas"availablefor
review."ThencontactSiminKarimiatsimin linguistlist.org.

Directory
1.aidema,Semiotics:TheBasics

Message1:Semiotics:TheBasics
Date:Fri,12Sep200311:28:59+0000
From:aidema<laomaa20023 yahoo.com.cn>
Subject:Semiotics:TheBasics
Chandler,Daniel(2002)Semiotics:TheBasics.Routledge.
Announcedathttp://linguistlist.org/issues/12/122780.html

EdwardMcDonald,ChineseCentralTelevision.

INTRODUCTION
ThisisatextbookinthesameRoutledgeseriesasLarryTrasks
Language:TheBasics(nowinitssecondedition),alongsideother
textsonsociology,politics,philosophy,andarchaeology.Thewriter
ofatextbookonsemioticsfacesproblemsnotencounteredbywriters
ontheseotherdisciplinesinthat,astheauthornotesinhisopening
remarks,itisnot''widelyinstitutionalizedasanacademic
discipline''(p.2),andashesumsupinhisclosingchapter,itis
still''arelativelylooselydefinedcriticalpracticeratherthana
unified,fullyfledgedanalyticalmethodortheory''(p.207).Other
recentsimilarintroductoryworkshavechosendifferentstrategiesto
dealwiththisloosenessandlackofagreementabouttheaimsand
contentofthefield.Forexample,BronwenMartin'sDictionaryof
Semiotics(2000)adoptsanencyclopedicapproach,notattemptingto
forgeaconsensusoutofthebabelofcompetingvoices,butrather
identifyingthedifferentkeyconceptsusedinthefield;whilethe
CriticalDictionaryofLinguisticsandSemioticseditedbyPaulCopley
(2001)addsanintroductorysectionoftenessaysonmajorfiguresand
issuesalongsidethedictionaryproper.Suchworksofcoursehave
theirplace,buttheyareperhapslessusefulforthebeginning
studentinthattheyperformanessentiallypassive,referential
functioninregardtoexistingworks.Chandlerattemptsthemore
ambitiousaimofactuallytryingto''offeracoherentaccountofsome
keyconcepts''insemiotics(p.xvi),nottryingtorepresentitasa
singleunifiedapproach,butratherasafieldwithsimilarsetsof
https://linguistlist.org/issues/14/142416.html

1/4

10/5/2016

LINGUISTList14.2416:GeneralLinguistics:Chandler(2002)

questions,andmoreovertocritiquehowwellitachievesitsgoals.In
myopinion,heachievesthataimsowellastomakehisbook
potentiallyoneofthefoundationalworksinanewunifiedconception
ofthediscipline,liketheLanguageofSapir(1921)orBloomfield
(1933).

DESCRIPTION
Chandlerdivideshisdiscussionintoanintroductiononthe
definitionsandusesofsemioticsfollowedby7chapters:1.Modelsof
thesign;2.Signsandthings;3.Analysingstructures;
4.Challengingtheliteral;5.Codes;6.Textualinteractions;and
7.Limitationsandstrengths.Healsoprovidessuggestionsforfurther
reading,Goingfurther(pp2212),andausefulGlossaryofkeyterms
(pp223246).Althougheachchaptercanbereadbyitself,thebook
hasobviouslybeendesignedasawhole,andsimilarproblemsand
conceptsareaddressedfromdifferentanglesintheseparate
chapters.TheIntroduction(pp115)humorouslyeasesthereaderinto
theproblemofdefiningthesubjectbyimaginingascenarioofsomeone
goingintoabookshopandaskingforabookonsemiotics,beingmetat
first''withablanklook''(p.1),thentryingtoexplainexactlywhat
the''studyofsigns''does*not*include,andendingupwiththeshop
assistantjudgingyouas''eithereccentricorinsane''(p.2).He
movesquicklythroughtheproblemofdefinitions(thoughinasense
thewholebookisonelongdefinitionofsemiotics),andthencovers
inturntheSaussureanandPierceantraditions;someinfluential
methodologies;therelationshipofsemioticstolinguistics;thekey
distinctionbetweenlangueandparole;andfinallywhywewouldwant
tolearnaboutadisciplinewhich,quotingonetrenchantsummingup,
''tellsusthingswealreadyknowinalanguagewewillnever
understand''(p.14).

Thefirsttwochapters,ModelsoftheSign(pp1754)andSignsand
things(pp5578)provideoneoftheclearestandmostilluminating
discussionsofthisdifficulttopicIhaveeverread.Chandlerfirst
dealswiththekeyfeaturesoftheSaussureansignasrelationaland
arbitrary,thenthefamousPierceantypologyoficon,indexand
symbol,inawaythatexplainsthethinkingofthesetheoristson
theirowntermsaswellrelatingthemtoeachother.Healsocovers
relatedtopicssuchasthedistinctionbetweentypeandtoken,and
digitalandanalogue.Hegoesoninthesecondchaptertocovera
topicsemioticsisoftenaccusedofignoring,thevexedquestionof
therelationshipbetween''theword''andthe''thing'',introducing
thefurtherkeyconceptsofreferentialityandmodality(inthesense
of''perspectivesonreality'',seeHodge&Kress1988).

Chapter3,Analysingstructures(pp79122)isalongchapterdealing
withthemanyandvariedwaysinwhichtexts,inthewidestsenseof
thatterm,havebeenanalysedindifferentsemiotic
traditions.StartingfromthebasicSaussureanaxesofthesyntagmatic
andparadigmatic,Chandlerlooksatdifferentkindsofsyntagmatic
relations:conceptual,spatial,andsequential.Inthelightofthese
relations,andconcentratingparticularlyonnarrative,hebriefly
introducesdifferentkindsofanalysissuchasProppsnarrative
functionsinfairytales,LeviStrausssfundamentalstructuresof
myths,andGreimassnarrativesyntagms.Hethenmovesonto
notionsofparadigmaticopposition,introducingtheculturalbinary
oppositionsofLeviStrauss,Jakobsonsnotionofweighted
oppositionsormarkedness,andGreimassformalismofthesemiotic
squareasawayofcapturingoppositionalrelations,finishingupwith
abrieflookatDerrideandeconstruction.

InChapter4,Challengingtheliteral(pp123146),Chandlershowshow
semiotics''representsachallengeto'theliteral'becauseitrejects
thepossibilitythatwecanneutrallyrepresent'thewaythingsare'''
(p.123).Heexplainstherealisationinrecentscholarshipthatour
representationofrealityisinescapablymediatedbyrhetoricaltropes
andmetaphors,anddiscussesthedifferentkindsofmetaphorbroadly
understood,includingmetonymyandsynecdoche,aswellasthe
https://linguistlist.org/issues/14/142416.html

2/4

10/5/2016

LINGUISTList14.2416:GeneralLinguistics:Chandler(2002)

difficultyofdrawingaclearlinebetweendenotationand
connotation.Chapter5,Codes(pp147174),looksatthesocial
dimensionofsemiotics,takingcodesasprovidinga''setofpractices
familiartousersofthemediumoperatingwithinabroadcultural
framework''(pp1478).Thenotionofcodecanbeseenasderiving
fromourbasicperceptualmodes,sinceperceptualdistinctionslike
thatbetweenfigureandgroundasidentifiedbygestaltpsychology,
alreadyrepresentacodificationormediationofreality,ratherthan
asimplerepresentation(p.150ff).Chandlerdefinesatleastthree
kindsofcodessocial,textualandinterpretativeandsees
themascorrespondingto''threekeykindsofknowledgerequiredby
interpretersofatext'',knowledgeoftheworld,ofthemediumand
genre,andmodalityjudgmentsoftherelationshipbetweenworldand
text(p.150).

Chapter6,Textualinteractions(pp175206)looksattextsas
semioticobjects,whichpositiontextusersasholdersofdifferent
subjectivities,playingvariousrolesinsemioticinteraction,and
which'speakto'othertextsthroughrelationsof
intertextuality.Chandlerdiscussesdifferentmodelsofcommunication,
suchasJakobson'sfamousmodelofthesituationofverbal
communication,andthesixbasicfunctionsoflanguagederivedfrom
it.Hecoverssuchnotionsasperspective,modesofaddress,reading
positions,andtheproblematisingoftheclassicnotionofauthorship
insuchconceptsasintertextuality(atextalwaysderivesfromother
texts)andbricolage(atextistoalargeextentmadeupofexisting
fragmentsofothertexts).Thefinalchapter,7,Limitationsand
strengths(pp207220),dealsbrieflybutcogentlywiththeusesof
semioticanalysis,critiquingmanyanalyseswhicharemerely
impressionisticandsubjectiveinterpretations,andstressingthat
interpretationsofsignsystemsmustberelatedtoactual
interpretativepracticesinacommunity.Althoughopenlycriticalof
thelimitationsofthedisciplineasitstands,Chandlerisequally
firmaboutitscentralitytoallourlives,ashepointsoutinhis
finalsummingup(p.219):''Thereisnoescapefromsigns.Thosewho
cannotunderstandthemandthesystemsofwhichtheyareapartarein
thegreatestdangerofbeingmanipulatedbythosewhocan.Inshort,
semioticscannotbelefttosemioticians.''

EVALUATION
Chandler'sbookisinnovativebothinitsapproachandinitsorigins,
derivingfromanoriginaltextdevelopedfortheinternet.Thefact
thatitwaswrittenforundergraduatestudents,andnodoubttrialled
manytimeswithdifferentgroupsofstudentssinceitsinitialairing
in1994,goessomewaytowardsexplainingitsclarityand
accessibility.However,thebookisnotsimplyaregurgitationofsome
''broadconsensus'',since,asIpointedoutabove,noneexistsin
thisfield,butreflectsthepersonalexperienceofaresearcher
trackinghisownpaththroughthecomplexthicketofsemiotics,in
thiscaseinrelationtotheoriesofwriting(Chandler1995).

AsChandlerpointsout,''notreatmentof[semiotics]canclaimtobe
comprehensive''andhisownparticularaccountofthefield''betrays
itsEuropeanorigins(inaBritishinflection),focussingon
SaussureanandpostSaussureansemiotics'',withkeytheorists
frequentlydrawnonincluding,besidesSaussure,Pierce,Jakobson,
Hjelmslev,BarthesandEco.Inhissuggestionsforfurtherreading,
Chandlerremarksthatitiswiseto''[consult]thefoundational
theorists,SaussureandPierce...sincetheyarefrequently
misrepresentedinpopulartexts''(p.221)andhehasobviously
followedhisownadvice,hisreadingsofSaussureinparticularbeing
bothwellinformedandfair.Atthesametime,inafieldcovering
suchawidescope,hehasnotbeenafraidtocullfromsecondaryor
eventertiarysources,thoughperhapsheisonlybeingmorehonest
thanmostacademicwritersinadmittingthathehasreadaparticular
theoristonlyinthecontextofanother'swork.

Havingtrekkedmyownwaythroughwritingsonthesemioticsofmusic,
https://linguistlist.org/issues/14/142416.html

3/4

10/5/2016

LINGUISTList14.2416:GeneralLinguistics:Chandler(2002)

amongwhichNattiez'swork(1990)isarareglimpseofclarityina
fogofopacity,IfeelIcanappreciatethehardthinkingandediting
thatmusthavegoneintoChandler'sintroduction.Hehasnotbeen
afraidtodosomefairlyextensive'mediating'himself,tomakesense
ofother'swritingsinhisown,aswellasintheirterms,andthus
provideapathwayforhisreaderstodeveloptheirown
understandings.Atthesametime,hehasagenuinerespectforother
theorists,andiscarefultopresenttheirworkincontext,andwitha
sympatheticunderstandingoftheiraims.Finallyheisnotafraidto
evaluateconceptsandtheoreticalsuggestions,tocritique,andto
pointoutpossiblegapsandinconsistencies.Thisbookisnotonlya
modelofanintroductorytextbook,butgoesfarbeyondthelimitations
ofthatgenretogiveusagenuinelynewandconsistentviewofthe
field.Iwouldrecommendittoanyonealreadyresearchinginthe
field,asawayofrefreshingtheirunderstandingofthepotentialof
semioticanalysis,aswellasaperfectguideforteachingstudents
fromundergraduatelevelup.
REFERENCES
Bloomfield,L.1933.Language.Holt,Rinehart&Winston.
Chandler,Daniel(1995)TheActofWriting:aMediaTheoryApproach.
UniversityofWales,Aberystwyth.
Copley,Paul(2001)CriticalDictionaryofSemioticsandLinguistics.
Routledge
Hodge,Robert&GuntherKress(1988)SocialSemiotics.Polity.
Martin,Bronwen(2000)DictionaryofSemiotics.Cassell
Nattiez,JeanJacques(1990)MusicandDiscourse:TowardsaSemiology
ofMusic.trans.CarolynAbbate.PrincetonUniversityPress.
Sapir,Edward(1921)Language.Harcourt.

ABOUTTHEREVIEWER
EdwardMcDonaldhastaughtlinguisticsandsemioticsattheNational
UniversityofSingaporeandatTsinghuaUniversityinBeijing;heis
currentlyworkingasanEnglisheditoratChineseCentralTelevision.
Hisresearchinterestslieintheareasofthegrammaranddiscourse
ofmodernChinese,ideologiesaboutlanguage,andthesemioticsof
languageandmusic.
Mailtoauthor|Respondtolist|Readmoreissues|LINGUISThomepage|Topofissue

https://linguistlist.org/issues/14/142416.html

4/4