Social Semiotics

 What is social semiotics and why is it important?

Social semiotics is a methodology that focuses on understanding how people communicate in different social settings, and how the different vessels of communication develop ones understanding of the world and relations to others. This includes writing, visuals, audio, gestures, and spatial patterns. Social semiotics were largely developed by Michael Halliday in his book Language as Social Semiotic. Halliday breaks down how language cannot be separated from society and discusses how language is a social semiotic, which opens up a pathway to the "semiotic approach," an approach that broadens the outlook on written language in linguistics (which then developed into other channels of communication). So why is this important? Social Semiotics is important because it outlines how we all understand different levels of communication and creates a framework for "meaning-making."

What are some rules associated with social semiotics?

 A semiotic system is made up of signs, meanings, and codes. Robert Hodge and Gunther Kress introduced 3 levels to the theory; Firstly ionic signs - "where the signifier resembles the signified" for example, a photograph. Secondly, Indexical signs - "signs where the signifier is caused by the signified" for example, smoke means fire. Lastly, denotation - "the most basic or literary meaning of a sign." For example, a daisy is a flower. 

Within visual social semiotics (or ionic signs), there is a focus on the interpretation and content of an image. The way photographs are taken, the placement of the camera, the positioning of the models or their gaze, body language, etc. are all visual things an audience can pick up on and use to interpret the meaning of photographs. According to theories of visual communication, Information value acts as a guide for how information is displayed among ionic signs, items towards the top of a photograph hold "ideal information," the bottom holds "real information," the left holds "known information," and the right holds "new" information.

Something I would like to analyze using this methodology or theory is political campaign ads. I am interested in seeing how politicians use ionic signs to positively promote themselves or negatively promote their opposition. Let's have a look at the two images below and assess them through social semiotics.

Ignoring the writing on these photos, visually you can dissect the visual social semiotics between the positive and negative depictions of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. In the positive depictions, you see the candidates making eye contact with the viewer, smiling, and signaling a thumbs up. The colors are bright and eye-catching, and patriotic colors are featured. Eye contact creates demand with the viewer, and salience is created through the colors, these are all subconscious themes the viewer takes away from these photographs. Now in comparison, the negative depictions of each candidate feature black and white//dull colors, lack of eye contact, and a "facepalm" gesture. This gives the viewer a negative feeling toward the candidates, and the placement of each in the center depicts information that will hold the image together.

Important links:

https://theoriesofviscomblog.wordpress.com/visual-social-semiotics/

https://multimodalityglossary.wordpress.com/social-semiotics/

Online Arguments

For today's assignment looking into online arguments and their validity, I decided to use one of my own TikTok video comment sections to demonstrate the lack of substance and outrageous statements often associated with online arguments. I chose this comment section for this assignment because the video sparked some controversy (weirdly), and it immediately came to mind when researching for this project because of the ridiculous arguments made in my comment section.  For example:

The first negative example I would like to acknowledge is a majority of people who disagreed with my video were commenting under private accounts with no real name or profile photo attached. You see accounts like this all over the internet, trolling creators and saying things they usually wouldn't because they don't feel the accountability they normally would in an in-person interaction. 

The second negative example is this user's argument having nothing to do with the content of the video; because they disagreed they resulted in using insults and immediately got defensive. The content needs to be addressed to form a valid argument, and there needs to be supporting evidence. This is something else I see online often because social media is a place to leave short comments and captions. It is infrequent to see an argument backed with facts and evidence. On top of this, because so much content is thrown in people's faces and commenting is so accessible, people feel the need to argue over pretty much anything they can. It is easier to scroll through a video or post you disagree with than take the time to comment and argue in the comment sections. Still, there is a weird source of adrenaline and validation people can receive through online arguments.

The 5 Rules of Online Arguments

1. Determine if it is something worth arguing about

Before you go ahead and start typing away, ask yourself; is it essential for me to engage in this comment section?

2. Focus on the content and not on the looks of the creator/outside factors 

Many times I have seen people disagreeing with creator's opinions and responding with hate comments to demean them; this has no positive effects. The point of an argument is voicing your opinion and trying to persuade the opposition of your point of view, and that can't be done without focusing on the topic at hand.

3. Back your argument with evidence 

Incorporating facts or even a hyperlink to your argument is very easy to increase your credibility.

4. Take into account the opposing view

I know it is hard to listen to something you disagree with, but it is essential to listen and understand what the other person is trying to say.

5. Be kind

Is this something you would say in person? Are you hiding behind a private account? If the answer is yes it probably isn't an argument you should be making.

Here is the link to my video!

https://www.tiktok.com/@rinoa.storms/video/6985705181962964229

Toulmin Method

What is the Toulmin method?

According to the textbook, the Toulmin method is a "technique based on the work of Stephen Toulmin, a contemporary philosopher who contributed a great deal to the understanding of argumentation. This method will allow you to analyze the logic of any argument; you will also find it useful in studying the logic of your own arguments as you draft and revise them." (Green 284)

One important piece of this method includes "warrants." Warrants are unstated assumptions the author of an argument may make, assuming the reader is already in agreement with their statement and does not need to further argue or explain their point. Readers should always take into account possible missing statements (or warrants) to study the soundness of an argument. According to the textbook "a writer may intentionally keep warrants unstated to discourage readers from thinking too hard about an argument's underlying principles." (Green 285)

Another important piece to the Toulmin method includes "qualifiers." A qualifier is meant to narrow down a statement so opposers aren't able to point out exceptions to the argument. This can be done by making wording more specific or removing assumptions/universal claims from the argument.

The last important piece of the Toulmin method is the use of a rebuttal. According to the textbook "a rebuttal is a statement that shows that the writer has anticipated counterarguments and diffused them by showing their flaws." (Green 286)

How has the Toulmin method been used online?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/25/opinions/kids-online-safety-act-congress-brown

One way I have experienced the Toulmin method being used online is through Political Op-Eds and opinion pieces published on news sites. The article above is a CNN opinion article on how congress can help protect children online. When reading through the argument, the warrant is stated clearly; the author doesn't just state that online is often unsafe for minors but provided context and statistics about minors viewing potentially harmful content such as pornography. The argument is stated clearly and concisely which includes the "qualifiers" aspect, and the rebuttal includes a popular counterargument and why that argument is faulty. 

Although there are many examples through opinion pieces published online, I think it is important to note many sources do not include proper evidence conveyed through the Toulmin method, but we as readers can use this newfound information to check the credibility of articles and sources moving forward.