Interest shapes the world: the motivated sign

October 2, 2007 at 8:54 pm 2 comments

First time ever in Barcelona, Professor Gunther Kress, head of the Centre for Multimodal Research at the University of London, kindly accepted the invitation from the Critical Literacy research group at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra to present the seminars “The contemporary social world and an apt theory of communication: Social Semiotics and Multimodality” and “Rethinking politics and representation: from critique to design”. I was pleased to attend the first one and listen to the insights of one the most prominent researchers in Social Semiotics nowadays. Professor Kress spoke to an attentive small group and some of his remarks were as inspiring as provocative. For example, we know social semioticians regard semiotic resources as bearing a motivated relationship between its material (realizational) parts, let’s put it this way, and the meaning they convey. That is simple to understand if we take a song, a peace of poetry, a film or an oral interaction. Kress, however, told us this assumption holds also for very basic resources, like individual words, for instance. This way, Saussure’s arbitrary relationship between signifier/signified is find to be wrong. Every relationship between form and meaning is motivated and influenced by its social cultural context. The fact we can’t trace the history of each word back to the moment when they were baptized doesn’t mean it was an arbitrary relation since the beginning.

Kress tries to theorize the semiotic work as any other kind of work. Like any other kind of activity, he thinks, semiotic work produces change; change produces meaning; then semiotic work produces meaning. Kress invited us to think about a person who works in her garden with some tools. As this person works, the worker herself will change (her body is probably to get sweaty) and the garden will change (more flowers planted). We can also expand the metaphor and think she may need new kinds of tools as she finds new needs in the garden and if she is an inventive one, she may try to produce herself a tool to solve “problems” during work. For Kress, there is no difference between semiotic work and any other kind. Then, producing meaning changes both the producer and the world.
Kress also told us interest frames the way we represent the world and that representation is always partial. What we do when we put form and meaning together is choosing the best possible representation available of that we wish to represent, but there’s never a perfect match. “We’re always saying things which are just close enough to what we mean”, said Kress. He went even further to say he wouldn’t draw a clear boundary between us (humans) and other mammalians. This idea is surely related to his belief the process of meaning production changes the producer herself. To some extent, we humans think the way we think because of the history of semiotic work we have been engaged in as a race.
One question which arose during the seminar was about how to identify modes in a multimodal text: visual? Oral? Are these modes? What are modes? According to Kress, modes are any given resources a given society has available to produce semiotic resources, in other words, the range of signifiers or realizational materials someone can use to convey, add or change meaning. For Kress, intonation and tone of voice are modes, while sound waves are a medium. The consequences of this line of reasoning are that even syntax and lexis can be considered modes, like typography and colour, but also that every single text is multimodal and that there are more evident types of modes, like colour, and less evident types, like syntax.

Well, if every representation process is always partial, interpretation is even further from the original meaning of something. It is a real miracle we get to understand each other, isn’t it? Actually, Kress regards reading as making hypothesis. This account you are reading of the time professor Kress dedicated to us in Barcelona is partial, interest driven and may only be close enough to what I meant to say – ¡Imagine to what Kress really told us! But it is definitely an account that above all tries to share the amazement at that we do when we do some semiotic activity and the enthusiasm for researching it. Hope my work changes you as much as it changes me.

Entry filed under: Multimodal Literacy.

New Lecturer on the block Get ready for what is coming up!

2 Comments Add your own

  • 1. jauregui  |  October 7, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    ‘Interest driven’ as it may be, your report on Kress’ lecture is such an enjoyable piece to read: neat and clear and to the point.

    Kress ideas on social semiotics are seductive in that are built within a nicely round coherent frame but reminds me of ‘positivism’ political theory a great deal in its emphasis on ‘interest driven’ forces.

    I have few doubts that we humans almost always act compel by our own interest – afterall is part of the game of being alive, but the question remains: ¿what are those less than obvious interest? Most of the time they stay as hiden to our own perception than to that of others.

    ¿is the altuist always choosing the one word that best serves his ideals when in a public speech? ¿is he making the right election of syntax when in front of people he hates even though they may be the ones who have the most resources to grant to the cause? ¿is his interest acting in behalf of others or when in need his own interest come first? ¿is he even aware that his own interest is not always that of others?

    One to many questions and no answers, I am afraid, like the one Kress gives the impression to be willing to uncover in his ‘discovery’ of human interest in the realization of all human actions.

  • 2. Janaina Minelli de Oliveira  |  October 8, 2007 at 8:04 am

    Hi Jauregui :),

    I understand it is not easy to think people are choosing the type of grammar, lexis, tone of voice, gestures and so many other things as they speak. It just looks like it’s too many things to handle at the same time. Most of what we do when we communicate seems just the natural thing to do, as if that was the way to say that we want to communicate. For semioticias however, choice is at the core of every meaning production process. Take whatever aspect of language you want, there’s always a range of different possibilities available to the speakers, who make decisions, selecting the forms which will convey specific types of meaning. Because we live in society, there are ratified ways of reaching our communicative objectives. Ways, genres would be the more technical word, which by experience we know will arrange meaning and form so as to reach specific audiences, in specific types of context. You take someone who is making a public speech, as you said, yes, it’s hard to believe he is controlling every single aspect of the way he communicates, but there sure are MANY things which he would NEVER say there in front of those people. Then he is making choices! Maybe some of them have been made so many times, his brains doesn’t need to invest a lot of time on them, but yes, we make choices all the time.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


October 2007
« Sep   Dec »

Most Recent Posts

%d bloggers like this: