Media literacy and semiotics:

Toward a future taxonomy of meaning

ELLIOT GAINES

Abstract
The pervasiveness of mass media and our dependence on it in contemporary
life suggest that special skills are necessary in order to understand the nature of media and its eects on the interpretation of issues and events that
happen outside the scope of an individuals experience. This essay explores
the need to develop a semiotic method designed to promote media literacy.
This method must be intuitive, use common language, and appeal to contemporary cultural values. The complexities of the language and concepts
of semiotics engender resistance. The purpose of this project is to work
toward a new taxonomy of semiotics by taking complex ideas from various
theories that can be adapted into a simple yet practical method for media
analysis.
Keywords:

1.

semiotics; media literacy; taxonomy; language; pragmatism.

The need for a method of critical media analysis

The conditions of contemporary society demand an educated, wellinformed population that can cope with high levels of information,
sophisticated media technologies, and critical thinking necessary to participate in democratic decision-making processes. Much of what people
claim to know is based on interpretations of information delivered by
mass media and understood from the context of an individuals knowledge and experience. Because mass communication technology is so accessible and easy to use, and its content appears to be clearly identied
as information or entertainment, people take for granted that they understand the meanings of various kinds of messages. The pervasiveness of
mass media and our dependence on it in contemporary life suggest that
special skills are necessary in order to understand the nature of media
Semiotica 1711/4 (2008), 239249
DOI 10.1515/SEMI.2008.076

00371998/08/01710239
6 Walter de Gruyter

Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/22/15 6:00 AM

240

E. Gaines

and its eects on the interpretation of issues and events that happen
outside the scope of an individuals experience. Semiotics could be the
key.
Everyone is a semiotician by nature, but few people are aware of it. Semiotic theory assumes an innate capacity to process sense perception and
interpret the meanings of signs that motivate the everyday practices of
living. At dierent times and in various contexts, individuals negotiate
between their experience and cultural habits imposing established beliefs
and practices.
Meanings are veried by interpreting complex levels of perception and
experience, and understanding informs the practical fulllment of the
needs and desires of everyday life. A collective consciousness about what
is normal, correct, moral, and true circulate assumptions that become
part of a shared cultural reality. Cultural habits have powerful eects on
behavior yet, by denition, beliefs and opinions do not require sensible
evidence for verication. At the heart of scientic inquiry are categories
of experience that are demonstrated as sensible and reasonable. In the
end, reason is the key to knowledge and understanding. But if it is true
that much of what we know is information received through mass media,
how can we judge if mediated knowledge is based upon reliable evidence?
How can the authority of a given source of information be determined? In
order to understand whether a source of information is credible, a critical
method of media analysis is necessary.
The purpose of this project is to propose a method for critical thinking
and media literacy that attempts to work within the fabric of contemporary society. In order to be popular, a method must be intuitive, use common language, and appeal to contemporary cultural values. Recognizing
the problems implicit in a project aimed at developing a way to understand the world, my intention is to take richly complex ideas from various
theories of semiotics and adapt them into a simple yet practical method
for media analysis. As McLuhan explained Deweys belief, we learn
what we do (quoted in Postman and Weingartner 1969: 17). Since knowledge grows out of practice rather than through the study of theory, applying basic semiotic methods to the analysis of media representations could
prepare a new generation of media consumers to understand the assumptions, myths, and fallacies generated through media production processes.
While this method must be adapted to each specic question, a functional
knowledge of media analysis has a great potential for maturing over time
with practice.
A semiotic taxonomy of meaning would provide a systematic method
of classifying meaning-making processes that address the future necessities of media literacy. As mass media technologies continue to dominate

Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/22/15 6:00 AM

Media literacy and semiotics

241

social discourse, semiotics could play an essential role in helping society

to understand and critique the media. But the future will necessarily develop from a context of contemporary life, language, and culture. So before any such method will be adopted, problems embodied by the language of semiotics must be addressed.

2.

The language of semiotics

A descriptive semiotic language would provide clear categorical distinctions between various media of representation. Certainly this has already
been done, but diverse philosophical perspectives rely on exclusive language that is constantly evolving as theorists attempt to describe and
clarify concepts. The language used by semiotic scholars is necessarily exclusive because of the rich complex historical interdisciplinary continuity
between philosophy, science, linguistics, and the arts. A critical method of
media analysis that can be learned by younger people and the general
public is needed. The method must be simple yet logical to appeal to a
culture that takes media literacy for granted.
Semiotics explores the structures and processes of representing meaning
and the reasoning engendered through communication and interpretation. However, in the current competition with other ideas, semiotics
appears to be hidden behind everything from string theory to intelligent
design. Semiotics provides insight into the processes that establish the
meanings of things. Even among related elds such as cultural studies
and literary criticism, semiotics appears to be a background theory that
may help inform the other disciplines. In addition, textbooks for courses
in media analysis include sections on semiotics that tend to focus more on
theory than applied method (see Berger 1991; Vande Berg et al. 2004;
OSullivan et al. 2003; and Branston and Staord 1996). With semiotics
as a background theory focused on structure and codes, most analysis depends on social science theories like uses and gratications, cultivation
theory, or critical theories of Marxism, ideology, rhetoric, feminism, psychoanalytic, and other cultural studies approaches. By focusing more on
the semiotic, media analysts can explore the nature of signs, sign relations, and the processes that structure the messages through the various
forms and levels of mass communication. At best, however, textbooks
draw isolated theoretical perspective from semiotics to support other
methods.
Debates continue between adherents to the two major semiotic traditions emerging from the work of Peirce and Saussure. At the same time,
intellectual movements follow Burkes (1966) Language as Symbolic

Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/22/15 6:00 AM

242

E. Gaines

Action, traditional rhetorical studies, linguistics, psychology, sociology,

anthropology, cultural studies, and others. Each develops enclaves of intellectual debate that thrive on discipline-specic languages and loyalties
to the way particular phenomena are named. Naming, however, does not
control the way people interpret the meanings of things. Every speaker
represents a culturally specic point-of-view that tries to limit how others
understand what they are naming.
To study language is to explore the essence of a distinctly human capacity to invent and understand expressions representing our invisible
mental experiences (Chomsky 1999: 294). The average person simplies
and manages complex science and philosophy by reducing ideas into concise preexisting knowledge categories. In order for the concepts of semiotics to gain popular appeal, the discipline must be reduced to a systematic
approach using language adapted from everyday speech. Only the most
basic and essential ideas should be used.
While the language of semiotics is inaccessible to the uninitiated, there
are many examples of others inventing ways to explain what semioticians
have already accomplished. For example, the main character in the novel
The Da Vinci Code is called a symbologist (Brown 2003). Tom Hanks
starred as the main character in the lm version. When he was interviewed on Inside the Actors Studio he made a point that the book was
ction and stated that there was no such thing as a symbologist. Host
James Lipton replied that the character was most likely a semiotician.1
The word symbologist has an intuitive appeal because people assume it
means one who studies symbols. Did Dan Browns publishers simply assume that readers would be put o by the word semiotician but could
guess at the meaning of a symbologist? From a marketing perspective, the
goal would be to appeal to the interest of a potential reader. Whereas the
word semiotician is lost on most readers, it is assumed that people will
guess what a symbologist is.
An interesting semiotic moment takes place in the lm Serendipity,2 a
romantic comedy starring John Cusack and Kate Beckensale. Just days
before he is to get married, Cusacks character Jonathan searches for
Sara (Beckensale), a women he had a brief romantic encounter with years
earlier and still dreams of meeting again. After following many leads with
Dean (Jeremy Piven) his best friend and best man, he suddenly decides to
end his search and go back to his upcoming wedding. When Dean presses
him for his reason, Jonathan describes the semiotic nature of his search.
He explains the dierence between a sign and a clue. He describes a clue
as an indexical sign saying, a clue is what a detective uses to nd a suspect. He lists various indexes such as nding a credit card receipt that
he hopes will lead to his girlfriends address. He describes a sign as a

Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/22/15 6:00 AM

Media literacy and semiotics

243

symbol or omen that infers a meaning. For example, the address from
the credit card receipt turned out to be a bridal shop that he interpreted
as a symbol meaning he should go home and get married. Cusack also
lists things that did not happen and states that the absence of signs is a
sign.
While this may be a statement of semiotic theory, the denitions
were designed to t the context of the lm and advance the plot by
building tension and concern for how the characters will overcome the
obstacles and resolve the romantic plot. Lacking a formal knowledge of
semiotics, the text still demonstrates a conceptual understanding of sign
logic.
A short piece from the New York Times Magazine uses the term semiotic disobedience to describe a video game. A video game was designed
to parody employees for the Kinkos copy service company and asks the
player to experience the indierence of these purple-shirted malcontents
rst-hand and consider the possible reasons behind their malaise (Walker
2006: 18). The term semiotic disobedience plays with phrase civil disobedience and suggests the game is intended to redene the meaning of
Kinkos (Walker 2006: 18). In a media world dominated by corporations
interested in creating and maintaining the image of a company, the individual can still decide how to understand slogans and names that contradict consumer experience. The video game constructs an articial myth
by making fun of what others assume to be true (Gaines 1998). The
Daily Show with Jon Stewart operates on the same principle when comedy writers convey news of current events with greater accuracy than conventional news programs even though they intend to create jokes for a
fake news program (Gaines 2006). So, while semiotic concepts may drive
the representations of ideas and information circulating through contemporary media, the language and science of semiotics is lost in its own sea
of language and theory.
Semiotics should eventually be recognized as a tool for understanding
media in the information age. But while literature and lms like The
Da Vinci Code and Ecos The Name of the Rose are clearly grounded
in semiotic principles, the language of semiotics is conspicuously absent. Reviews of both Ecos and Browns novels mention semiotics in
passing as do the occasional magazine article on fashion or other relevant aspects of popular culture. As Eco stated, . . . I consider myself a
university professor who writes novels on Sunday . . . I cannot expect to
have one million readers with stu on semiotics (Eco 2005). The signicance of semiotics is implied but discipline-specic language and theory
are avoided with popular audiences because they will not recognize its
practical use.

Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/22/15 6:00 AM

244
3.

E. Gaines
Pragmatism, semiotic method, and language usage

Pragmatism and semiotics are directly related according to Peirce. His

notion of pragmatism had more to do with the nature of how people understand the meanings of things than the common use of the term pragmatism that refers to acting with an intention to get some practical result.
Peirce claimed to have come to his understanding of pragmatism through
a logical and non-psychological study of the essential nature of signs
(quoted in Brent 1998: 327). He infers that meaning is a relationship between a sign that stands for or represents something, and an interpreter
who understands its practical consequences. The importance of Peirces
Pragmatic Maxim is that it puts the interpreter at the center of the
meaning-making process rather than the relationship between the sign to
its object (EP 2: 135). The original Pragmatic Maxim is quoted as follows: Consider what eects that might conceivably have practical bearings we conceive the object of our conception to have: then, our conception of those eects is the whole of our conception of the object (EP 2:
135). While Peirces wording is awkward and confusing, Morris simply
stated that pragmatism is the study of the relation of signs to interpreters
(1938: 6). The interpretation of meaning is always grounded in the context of an interpreter who understands the practical consequences of signs
from a particular point-of-view. That is not to suggest that signs never
have universal meanings, but that perceptions are always embodied in a
particular context and that the meaning of something is determined by
how its consequences are understood. This conicted with the Pragmatism made popular by James and Dewey that suggests meaning consists
in action, in doing (Deely 2001: 615). Thus, rather than explaining the
theoretical nature of meaning as Peirce had originally explained his idea,
pragmatism is commonly used to refer to a straightforward way of thinking and dealing with problems in order to get desired results.
The semiotic traditions of Peirce, Saussure, Hjelmslev, and Morris, to
name a few key gures, have provided an elaborate lexicon and methodological systems for the study of signs. However, they all require a great
depth of study that has maintained the exclusive character of the discipline. For example, Peirce created a brilliant system of ten classes of signs
as part of his semiotic theory, but using the ten classes of signs as a categorization scheme seems to yield nothing other than a clumsy new language (Shank and Cunningham 2006). In further developing semiotic
language Morris stated, These terms have already taken on an ambiguity
which threatens to cloud rather than illuminate the problems of the eld
. . . and distract attention from genuine problems (1946: 217). For the
purposes of media literacy in general education and in order to enter the

Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/22/15 6:00 AM

Media literacy and semiotics

245

sphere of popular culture, both the language and method must be eloquent without being confusing or counter intuitive. But as Sare explains,
coiners cant be choosers . . . usage determines meaning (2006: 16). The
acceptance of a neologism is reected by how people understand and use
a word. Again, consider the case for Peirces pragmatism. Peirce intended
a particular meaning when he rst used the term pragmatism in 1905
and subsequently coined the term pragmaticism to distinguish his intended meaning from how the original term was used by colleagues including James and Dewey (Deely 2001: 614625).
If language is potentially problematic because usage does not conform
to intended meanings, media technologies compound the issues with
additional layers of signifying processes. How is the world represented
through various forms of new media technology? Consumers read content
without due consideration of the eect of media to anonymously assume
authority of the authors of messages. Who determines what information
is relevant and how can consumers distinguish facts from opinions about
events and objects represented in the media?

4.

Framing a taxonomy of semiotics

The term semiotics evokes confusion among the uninitiated. As stated

earlier, coiners cant be choosers (Sare 2006: 16). People generally assume they know how to communicate and interpret the world, but without consistent methods people use language according to their own
habits. Because a scholar coins a term intended to describe some phenomenon does not ensure that people will embrace it.
If language is potentially problematic because usage does not conform
to intended meanings, media technologies compound the issues with additional layers of signifying processes. The pervasive use of any communication technology suggests a tacit acceptance of the technology as mediators of perception (Postman and Weingartner 1969: 166). Consumers
read entertainment and information content without due consideration
of the eect of media to frame social discourse and to impose a sense of
social norms.
A semiotic taxonomy of descriptive terms for the analysis of mass media would be useful for addressing the needs for critical thinking and media literacy. Taxonomy is a system used to create an unambiguous semantic structure of categories for organizing the meanings of objects and
ideas. Taxonomic models are kinds of knowledge trees underlying much
human classication of ordinary experiences. Taxonomies are employed
when individuals classify phenomena by the formula x is a kind of y

Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/22/15 6:00 AM

246

E. Gaines

(Shore 1998: 159). Considering the volume of materials already devoted

to the topic, it must be acknowledged that there are many dierent approaches, methods, terms, and categories, and the language of semiotics
remains problematic for the general public.
Debates among semioticians, and the larger debates within the academy concerned with philosophies of communication and interpretation
of meaning are diverse and substantive. Still semiotics provides the clearest logical approach to a media literacy method. Danesi (2002) gets to the
heart of media literacy issues succinctly stating: In identifying and documenting media structures, the semiotician is guided by three basic questions: 1. What does a certain structure (text, genre, etc.) mean? 2. How
does it represent what it means? 3. Why does it mean what it means?
(Danesi 2002: 23). Danesis questions are clear without discipline-specic
terminology.
The rst question looks for an interpretation or conclusive understanding that generally emerges at a connotative level, and anticipates that a
media analyst will have the competencies necessary for questions 2 and
3, asking how and why. Asking how meaning is represented is the central
question of semiotic analysis. To answer this question the representational structures of communication must be revealed. The key concepts
are generally expressed with words that demonstrate the assumptions of
semiotics. The rst is that signs are an expression or representation of an
object or meaning that exists separately from the object or meaning that
it stands for. The interpreter always has a relationship with an object of
perception, but the object of a sign is not aected by how it is interpreted.
The most immediate and obvious question of the process of media
analysis is: 1. What does a certain structure (text, genre, etc.) mean? (Danesi 2002: 23). This question evokes Peirces ideas about pragmatism,
the notion of Thirdness, and the interpretant. Conating these distinct
ideas exploits their commonalities and brackets the ner details valued by
scholars (see EP 1, EP 2; Deely 2001). At the same time, a complex concept can be simply stated so one can understand that the meaning of a
sign generates a new sign in the mind of an individual. All interpretations
originate from a perspective that assumes the practical consequences of
an object or event from a particular point-of-view, but media elevate the
representation of meaning to a higher level. The processes of interpretation happen through negotiation and power, and media productions impose the naturalization of meaningful consequences.
In media literacy, it is especially important to distinguish between the
meaning intended by the messenger, the neutral or denotative meaning
of an object (which has no motivation to have meaning), and a perceptual
judgment negotiated from a receivers contextual point-of-view (Nattiez

Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/22/15 6:00 AM

Media literacy and semiotics

247

1990: 46). The classication of a meaning is based on what the interpreter

believes is the eect or consequence of the object or meaning. One sees
the world according to how it ts into the needs and expectations of
life so that things are classied as good/bad, important/not important,
appealing/not appealing, and so on as situations emerge that can be distinguished accordingly.
Media producers have the power to construct messages, but audiences
can negotiate their meanings. The strengths and limits of any medium to
represent the truth are dened by its capacity to focus attention from a
constructed point-of-view. When signs are read, they construct new signs
in the minds of individuals in the audience. The processes of media analysis that engender media literacy begin with reactions to these new signs
or interpretations that raise questions and inspire intuitive negotiations
about the meanings.
Exploring how meaning is represented requires language and concepts
that reveal structural components of representation that make particular
meanings and practices normal, and therefore intended to be perceived as
correct. Asking why media producers construct a particular message or
interpretation of objects or events addresses social relations and factors
that motivate communication strategies. These are negotiations for power
over how cultures should understand events and objects, what we should
believe is true, correct, or normal, and thus prescribe ways of acting in
any given situation. The role of semiotics, then, is to provide analytical
tools that empower audiences to systematically recognize media devices
and strategies designed to control social discourse, beliefs, and practices.
Answering what an intended message means and how it is represented
prepares one to understand why it represents the interests of its producers. Media messages are not necessarily bad or good, but they do assert a dominant point of view. Semiotic methods enable critical thinking
and prepare media literate audiences to resist being manipulated.
The taxonomy of semiotics will be progressive and expansive. Words
used to express the concepts of semiotics develop into a complex vocabulary of interrelated ideas. All terms must have a practical function related
to media analysis. The way the taxonomy develops will thus construct a
new culture of media literate semiotic analysts.
Understanding the logic of sign relations can increase productivity,
clarify issues necessary for making eective decisions, and enhance creativity. Knowledge of semiotics can help to distinguish signs that function
as propositions, arguments, and actuality, and to recognize the dierence
between nature and history, fact and opinion. Semiotics is a way to understand the logic of how meaning is derived from the interpretation of signs.
So, I am suggesting that a semiotic taxonomy must appeal to people that

Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/22/15 6:00 AM

248

E. Gaines

are generally more inclined to look for results and avoid the eort necessary to acquire deep theoretical understandings.
I conclude by quoting Nathan Houser speaking about the future of
semioitcs: Perhaps at our present state of understanding of language and
semiosis we dont have any need for such complexity just as we didnt
once have any need for relativity physics but I predict that someday
we will face a use even a need for Peirces full theory. (Houser 1990:
xxxviii)

Notes
1. James Lipton, Inside the Actors Studio, Bravo Network, May 14, 2006.
2. Peter Chelsom (dir.), Miramax.

References
Berger, Arthur Asa (1991). Media Analysis Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Branston, Gill and Staord, Roy (1996). The Media Students Handbook. London:
Routledge.
Brent, Joseph (1998). Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Brown, Dan (2003). The Da Vinci Code. New York: Doubleday.
Burke, Kenneth (1966). Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and
Method. Berkley: University of California Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1999). Form and meaning in natural languages. In Modern Philosophy of
Language, Maria Baghramian (ed.), 284308. Washington, DC: Counterpoint.
Danesi, Marcel (2002). Understanding Media Semiotics. London: Oxford University Press.
Deely, John (2001). Four Ages of Understanding. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Eco, Umberto (2005). I am a professor who writes novels on Sundays: Interview with
Umberto Eco by Mukund Padmanabhan. The Hindu, October 23. Available online at
http://www.thehindu.com/2005/10/23/stories/2005102305241000.htm.
Gaines, Elliot (1998). The semiotics of articial mythology and The Far Side. In Semiotics
1997, C. W. Spinks and John Deely (eds.), 277288. New York: Peter Lang.
Gaines, Elliot (2006). The narrative semiotics of The Daily Show. Semiotica 166 (1/4), 81
96.
Houser, Nathan (1992). Introduction to The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, vol. 1, Nathan Houser and Christian Kloesel (eds), xixxli. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Morris, Charles (1938). Foundation of the theory of signs. Foundation of the Unity of
Science 1 (2), 159.
Morris, Charles (1946). Signs, Language, and Behavior. New York: Prentice Hall.
Nattiez, Jean-Jacques (1990). Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music, Carolyn
Abbate (trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
OSullivan, Tim, Dutton, Brian and Rayner, Philip (2003). Studying the Media, 3rd ed. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/22/15 6:00 AM

Media literacy and semiotics

249

Peirce, Charles S. (1992). Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, vol. 1 (1867
1893), N. Hauserand, C. Kloesel (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference to vol. 1 of Essential Peirce will be designated EP 1.]
Peirce, Charles S. (1998). Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, vol. 2 (1893
1913). Peirce Edition Project (eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Reference
to vol. 2 of Essential Peirce will be designated EP 2.]
Postman, N. and Weingartner, C. (1969). Teaching as a Subversive Activity. New York:
Dell.
Sare, William (2006). On language: New name-calling nomenclature. New York Times
Magazine, September 3, 18.
Shank, Gary and Cunningham, Donald (2006). Modeling the six modes of Peircean abduction for educational purposes. Available online at http://www.cs.indiana.edu/event/
maics96/Proceedings/shank.html.
Shore, Brad (1998). Cultural knowledge. In Encyclopedia of Semiotics, Paul Bouissac (ed.),
157161. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vande Berg, Leah, Wenner, Lawrence A. and Gronbeck, Bruce E. (2004). Critical Approaches to Television. New York: Houghton Miin.
Walker Rob (2006). Gaming the system: A computer game subverts corporate symbols to
bite back at corporations themselves. New York Times Magazine, September 3, 18.
Elliot Gaines (b. 1950) is associate professor at Wright State University Department of
Communication 3elliot.gaines@wright.edu4. His research interests include communication,
semiotics, and media. His publications include The semiotics of media images from Independence Day and September 11, 2001 (2001); Truth, semiotics, and the necessary ambiguity of
communication (2003); Interpreting India, identity, and media from the eld: Exploring the
communicative nature of the exotic other (2005); and Communication and the semiotics of
space (2006).

Brought to you by | Purdue University Libraries

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/22/15 6:00 AM