SEMIOTICS

Group member :
Anis Yoganita Herawati (12211141001)

Nur Afifah (12211141002)

Ulik Chodratilah (12211141003)

Proxemics
1. According to anthropologist Edward Hall, proxemics refers to the study of how humans
construct and manage microspace--the distance between people in the conduct of
everyday transactions, the organization of space in their houses and buildings, and the
designof
their
towns.
-- Hall, The Silent Language, 1959; The Hidden Dimension, 1966.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/comm321/gwalker/nonverbal.htm
2. Definition of PROXEMICS
The study of the nature, degree, and effect of the spatial separation individuals naturally
maintain (as in various social and interpersonal situations) and of how this separation
relates to environmental and cultural factors
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proxemics
3. The study of the symbolic and communicative role in a culture of spatial arrangements
and variations in distance, as in how far apart individuals engaged in conversation stand
depending on the degree of intimacy between them.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proxemics

Kinesics
1. Kinesics is the nonverbal code system of bodily activity; body language.
Major theorists are R. Birdwhistell, and P. Ekman and W. Friesen
definition of KINESICS
: a systematic study of the relationship between nonlinguistic body motions (as blushes,
shrugs, or eye movement) and communication
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proxemics
2. The study of the way in which certain body movements and gestures serve as a form of
non-verbal communication.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/kinesics
3. Birdwhistells Theory of Kinesics: claims that the body can be read like language
Ekman &Freisens Theory of Kinesics: purports to reduce facial movement to the
smallest reducible parts, label and assign meaning to them
http://people.wcsu.edu/wissk/290/CT.HTM

Non verbal communication

1. Non-verbal communication : A process whereby people, through the intentional or
unintentional manipulation of normative actions and expectations, express experiences,
feelings, and attitudes in order to relate to and control themselves, others, and their
environments. (Hickson& Stacks, 1985)
2. nonverbal communication involves those nonverbal stimuli in a communication setting
that are generated by both the source [speaker] and his or her use of the environment and
that have potential message value for the source or receiver [listener] (Samovar et al).
http://www.andrews.edu/~tidwell/bsad560/NonVerbal.html
3. Non-verbal communication includes gesture, facial expressions, and body positions
( known collectively as body language ) as well as unspoken understanding and
presuppositions and cultural and environment conditions that may affect any encounter
between people.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nonverbal+communication

Verbal communication
1. verbal communication is the messages you send with words.
https://nationalvetcontent.edu.au/alfresco/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/3973a53f-00c94d22-9a844844a817f302/602/shared/resources/director/induction/communication/verbal_nonverbal
_com.htm
2. verbalcommunication is (i.e., using human language to represent the world and pass on
information) can be seen as a subsystem of a larger system of human communication, it
therefore exhibits all features of an open communication system (cf. Katz and Kahn
1966).
http://www.pulib.sk/elpub2/FF/Ferencik/03.pdf
3. Verbal communication is the use of sounds and words to express yourself, especially in
contrast to using gestures or mannerisms (non-verbal communication).
http://www.yourdictionary.com/verbal-communication

Lingual Semiotic
for literary source texts ( alenapetrova , www.cttic.org/ACTI/2012/Actes/AlenaPetrova )
As a starting-point for my lingustic-semiotic approach I take the fact. that literary texts possess
both primary linguistic and secondary poetic structure. Thats why translators need on the one
hand the knowledge of literary stylistics (Brandes 2004) to analyse linguistic structures of
literary texts and on the other hand the knowledge of semiotics (works of Lotman, Jacobson,
Propp and Greimas, summarized in Keller / Hafner 1986/1995) to. analyse poetic structures of
such texts. On this basis I have developed the method to analyse source texts that allows to create
the translating norm for each literary text by finding out intended violations of the linguistic
norm and by determining all the dominants (main systematic repetitions) on each macro- and
microstructure level of the text.

Nonlingual Semiotic
1.
in 1914 Husserl concludes that there are three fundamental categories of signs:
Natural, physical signs which show a natural independence between the cause, or identity, of the
signified. For instance, between a symptom and an illness. Small red spots which are itchy
indicate chicken pox. Smoke indicates there is a fire. Dark skies indicate there is rain or snow
about to fall. Oddly, Husserl also classed psychological and emotional signs and writing as
natural signs (Bernet, 1988, p 19). Possibly Husserl is referring to the case of the free expression
of emotions without learned inhibitions. Bernet informs us that the revision of the Investigations
in 1914 makes use of insights gained about the links in the types of intentionality involved in
speech and empathy generally (Ibid, pp 19-20).
Genuine signs are considered as non-lingual, artificial codes and conventions of the individual
will or ego in relation to the general codes of culture and society. These genuine signs point to
thought, memory, imagination and meaning-intentions concerning established, shared codes. For
instance, a red flag by a beach means that it is too dangerous to swim. The colour of traffic lights
indicates how the road junction should be used.

2.
Saussure (1916:65-70) elaborated his model of the sign only to the extent required to
explore the nature of the linguistic sign, but as already mentioned, many following the
Saussureansemiological tradition transferred his ideas to non-linguistic signs. Two schools are of
note in that regard the Prague School of the 1930s and 1940s, and the Paris School of the
1960s and 1970s.
It is generally recognised that the study of language has served as the model for much work in
the field of semiotics, and that the nature of this work derives initially from Saussures
semiological program, Hjelmslevs extension of Saussures ideas in his glossematics, and the
further application of these ideas by various schools of semiotics in their examination of other
non-linguistic modes of communication.

Saussure (1916:65-70) elaborated his model of the sign only to the extent required to explore the
nature of the linguistic sign, but as already mentioned, many following the
Saussureansemiological tradition transferred his ideas to non-linguistic signs. Two schools are of
note in that regard the Prague School of the 1930s and 1940s, and the Paris School of the
1960s and 1970s.