M.A.K. Halliday

This issue of SemiotiX, the first to which I am contributing in my capacity as Associate Editor, focuses on the contribution to semiotics by the Australian linguistic M.A.K.  Halliday.   Three guest scholars provide tasters of what his work is about, what ideas underpin it and the way it has been adopted to look at visual communication.  Halliday’s approach to communication has particular interest for me as a scholar and especially in terms of the kinds of semiotic work I would like to see more of myself which would involve careful description of the available repertoires of the semiotic tools used in different concrete settings and the politics of these choices.

In the first place, I work within the broad critical linguistic field known as Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).   In this approach, the aim is to carry out close analysis of language in use, of speeches, news texts, and talk in order to draw out the buried ideologies that may not necessarily be so obvious to casual reader or listener.   Much writing in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) owes a debt to Michael Halliday who placed an emphasis on looking not so much at language in terms of its structures but as a system of options.   Here, there is a strong sense that words and grammar should not be thought of as having fixed meanings or structures but rather as having meaning potentials which people use to communicate their own motivated views of the world.  Every communicative act is an act of meaning.   Each act is part of an on-going process of modifying and making communicative tools.    But since communication is motivated, this is essentially about promoting world views; it is about what kind of social reality gets shaped out of this process of meaning making.   In the opening contribution, Lise Fontaine introduces Halliday’s basic ideas and how they allow us to break down language into acts of meaning making.   The aim of CDA is to point to the kinds of choices available and show how they are used in specific instances.    One way of putting this is that we show in detail the linguistic semiotic choices used to construct a particular set of actions, circumstances, participants etc.

Hodge and Kress (1988) emphasised that communicators, or sign-makers, are motivated not just by the available semiotic resources but also by their particular socio-cultural origins.   Critical Discourse Analysis added a splash of Marxism and the idea of the ruling groups in society seeking to promote and naturalise their own views of the world.  Some  early examples of this work are from Gunter Kress and Robert Hodge in their 1988 volume ‘Social Semiotics’.   Of course, the core idea of this has inspired what is now known and practiced, particularly in Anglo-Australian contexts, as Sociosemiotics which Cobley and Randiviir (2009) describe as the study of the ways signs are deployed in social formations.    What is emphasised in this approach is providing an account of the underlying options available as a system of meaning potentials and then showing which ones of these are activated.

In the second place, my interest in M.A.K. Halliday’s works comes through my research in the loose field that has been called ‘Multimodality’.  This is, to some extent,  an emergent area mainly populated by Halliday-inspired linguists who are looking at Halliday’s work, the rules he spelled out for the ways in which semiotic system  operate, in as much as this can help us to think about other modes, or forms of communication. But there are also a range of scholars from across fields such as anthropology, education, and music, to mention just a few, who have been interested in exploring these ways of looking more precisely at the details of communication and meaning making in different sensorial modes.   How does the layout of the classroom or any room, the kinds of colours, shapes, surfaces, etc., influence what takes place, what we do in that place, and the meanings we produce?  Is there any way we can document the meaning potentials of these built environments as sets of options?    And most importantly perhaps, –  an approach which characterises some of the work done by Kay O Halloran who provides our second piece in this feature — what are the differences in the ways that different modes work and how do they work together to build meaning?   In the third instalment of this profile, Andrea Mayr offers an introduction into the way that Halliday’s work can be used to analyse both texts and images in order to draw out the buried ideologies.    The model that Andrea offers, reflecting her own work, could be described as Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis.

David Machin

For my part, what I most take from all this kind of work is the attention to detail, the emphasis on turning our eye to the minutiae of communication, whatever the mode, with an emphasis on describing all of what we see or hear through the meaning potentials that we find used, seen as a system of options.    Many years ago I began my academic career investigating language use in anthropology departments.   Here we were concerned with the arbitrary ways humans construct their societies and the way they went about their collective lives.  We would analyse the stories they told, the representations they produced, the objects, tools and buildings they made.   Even the simplest of activities such as buying a loaf of bread at the local shop was viewed as a complex accomplishment relying on understandings achieved through a range of shared assumptions and use of communicative cues.    One way of looking at doing semiotics is as a more careful process of documenting these communicative process and tools.   For me, social semiotics is one way to bring more detail, rigor and even prediction to these observations.   If we can identify some of the underlying systems of choices and the meaning potentials they offer we can use these to create inventories that can guide the deliberate and self-conscious use of them.   Using its own set of principles this has after all been the aim of much work in visual design especially where marketing is concerned.    I hope that the short vistas provided here will point those interested in the direction of finding out more.

In SFL, every act of language is an act of meaning and “to mean is to act semiotically” [3]. For Halliday “the internal organization of language is not arbitrary but embodies a positive reflection of the functions that language has evolved to serve in the life of social man” [4]. This is unique because it means language must be explained as expressing meanings that are created within a social system [5].  For those of us who are interested in how language acts both socially and semiotically, this is useful because it lets us describe and explain how social reality is encoded in language, both in terms of how language is a means of reflecting on things and how it is a means of acting (symbolically) on people [6].

Within SFL, language can be viewed from two semantic perspectives:

• Generically as semiotic system; representing the full meaning potential available to speakers (i.e. the full set of semantic options available to a speaker, what he or she can mean in contrast to what he or she can’t mean)
• Specifically as text; representing a socially constructed instance of the system (this simply means that ‘text’ is the result of the meanings that were actually selected, it is the output of the semiotic system).

To illustrate this, consider a traffic light. In systemic notation, the semantic options (e.g. potential = ‘stop’ OR ‘caution’ OR ‘go’) are related to their forms  (red, yellow, green). So, if the meaning ‘stop’ is selected, the text will be expressed as (red) .

The same basic relations apply for language. However the language system is complex and there are many different related systems. Each one represents the set of semantic options that are available to the speaker (i.e. what the speaker can mean). For example, in the simplified system shown below for transitivity (categories of experience), three semantic options are available: material (‘doing’), mental (‘sensing’) or relational (‘relating’).  Examples of an instance of each option are shown below.

SFL describes three main functions of language, each organised by its own system network:

Experiential meaning: representation of experience. Speakers represent their experience by the content component of language mainly in terms of participating entities, processes and circumstances.

Interpersonal meaning: social interaction. Speakers use language to act, e.g. ask questions, give information, issue a command etc. Language also expresses the speaker’s subjective judgments and opinions.

Textual meaning: relevance in context. Speakers create text by indicating topic and relevance in how they organise language.

These metafunctions are simultaneously expressed in one form – the clause, which, as text, holds traces of these meanings. Analysts recover these by identifying the strands of meaning, metaphorically like using a prism to refract white light; by separating them, their semantic contributions to the text can be understood.

As an example, two clauses will be analysed briefly to show the dispersion of the strands of meaning. They were taken respectively from political party speeches by Blair (1995) and Clegg (2007).

“I wasn’t born into this party. I chose it. I’ve never joined another political party”

Tony Blair, Special Conference (Labour Party). April 29, 1995.

“Like most people of my generation, I wasn’t born into a political party.

I am a liberal by choice, by temperament and by conviction”

Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat Party. October 19th, 2007.

These clauses are clearly very similar. However with closer examination, we can get a better understanding of the meanings that are expressed. Both speakers function as Subject and as Theme to create text and relevance, thereby grounding what is being said. However experientially they differ considerably. Blair is represented actively in a material process, having the role of Actor and the labour party is represented as Goal, something impacted upon by Blair.  In contrast, Clegg is represented abstractly as Carrier, an entity that is simply related to the party as an Attribute. For Clegg, then, party membership is an attribute. Furthermore, the act of choosing is for Blair an active process in which he is Actor, whereas for Clegg it is a peripheral element, expressing a Manner Circumstance. Circumstances such as this one “encode the background against which the process takes place” [7]. Choosing is therefore background for Clegg, whereas for Blair, it is a pivotal element.

This kind of approach is useful as a conceptual tool for exploring the semiotics within the language system, as construed within and by the social system. The analysis of text enables us to decode the semiotic properties of the situation in which the text exists.  Situation should be interpreted as a “semiotic structure whose elements are social meanings and into which ‘things’ enter as the bearers of social values” [8]. Given that language is the primary means by which we act and interact, SFL analysis can give attention to the semiotic acts of speakers by describing language from the perspective of social semiotic, where the focus is on “defining human experience and enacting the social relations essential to our shared sense of humanity” [9].

About me – twitter – blog – LinC

For more information on Systemic Functional Linguistics:

Introductory books:

Fontaine, L. (2013, in press) Analyzing English Grammar: a systemic-functional introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1985/1994/2004) Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Thompson, G. (2004, 2^nd edition) Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Books on Language Semiotics:

Halliday, M.A.K. (1976). Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as a Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

Threadgold, T. Grosz, E.A., Kress, G. & Halliday, M.A.K. Eds. (1986) Semiotics, Ideology, Language. Sydney: Sydney Association for Studies in Society and Culture.

Online resources:

ISFLA – International Systemic Functional Linguistics Association (lots of resources)

Sysfling – Sysfling is the main international discussion group for SFL.

Functional Grammar for Teachers – a really nice moodle, designed for teachers but offers a really great introduction to SFL.

References (separate page?)

[1] Fawcett, R. (2008) Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics through the Cardiff Grammar: an extension and simplification of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar.  London: Equinox.

[2] Berry, M., Butler,  C.S., Fawcett,  R.P., and Huang, G.W. (eds.) Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations.  Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday.  Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

[3] Halliday, M. A. K. (2013) Meaning as Choice. In Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G. (eds.) Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[4] Halliday, M.A.K. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.

[5] Kress, G. (1976) Introduction. In G. Kress (ed.), Halliday: System and Function in Language. London: Oxford University Press, pp. vii-xxi.

[6] Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as a Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

[7] Thompson, G. (2004, 2^nd edn.) Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

[8] Kress, G. (1976) Introduction. In G. Kress (ed.), Halliday: System and Function in Language. London: Oxford University Press, pp. vii-xxi.

[9] Webster, J. (2005)  Why the human sciences need the linguist. Linguistics and the Human

Sciences. 1, 1, pp. 3-13.

Kay O`Halloran

Halliday’s (1978) social semiotic theory provides the basis for the study of semiotic resources other than language (e.g. images, architecture, music, mathematical symbolism, gesture, clothing etc) and, significantly, the interaction of semiotic resources in a field known as multimodal analysis or multimodality (e.g. Jewitt, 2009; Machin, 2007; O’Halloran, 2011) .  Indeed Halliday’s view of culture as ‘a set of [inter-related] semiotic systems’ (Halliday & Hasan, 1985: 4) is the major platform for research in multimodal studies today, as evidenced by foundational works in the field (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006 [1996]; O’Toole, 2011 [1994]).

Halliday’s social semiotic theory provides a framework for moving beyond ‘running commentaries’ about multimodal phenomena (see Bateman, 2008) to empirical validation of claims because the theory is concerned with the underlying design (or ‘grammar’) of semiotic resources and their relations with each other, specified as inter-related semantic systems which are seen to fulfil four functions: to construe our experience of the world (experiential meaning); to create logical relations  between experiential meanings (logical meaning), to enact social relations (interpersonal meaning) and to organise meanings into coherent messages in text (textual meaning). In this way, the Hallidayan framework accounts for multiple strands of meaning with semiotic resources and their underlying systems as the tools for meaning-creation.

The ability to model intra-semiotic meaning (within a single semiotic resource) and inter-semiotic meaning (across different semiotic resources) within a common framework afforded by Hallidayan theory allows for the investigation of semantic shifts and metaphorical expansions of meaning which occur as semiotic resources interact and combine (e.g. in mathematics, O’Halloran (2005) and science (Lemke, 1998)).  We may also see how semantic clusterings vary according to context and culture, and how these patterns are reinforced (e.g. through technologies such as Microsoft Powerpoint) and subverted (e.g. in works of art) (van Leeuwen, Djonov, & O’Halloran, forthcoming). We can also track semiotic change across individuals and cultures (e.g. Halliday’s (2006) account of the semantic shift arising from the scientific view of the world).

Significantly, Halliday’s theory lends itself to computational approaches (Halliday, 2005; O’Donnell & Bateman, 2005) which are currently being developed to advance the theory and practice of multimodal analysis.  For example, software for the analysis, search and retrieval of multimodal semantic patterns is being developed in the Multimodal Analysis Lab in the Interactive & Digital Media (IDMI) at the National University of Singapore¹ to move beyond page-based methods of multimodal transcription and analysis (O’Halloran, Tan, Smith, & Podlasov, 2011; Smith, Tan, Podlasov, & O’Halloran, 2011). The software can be used to analyse text, images, sound and videos (hypertext is to be included in the next software development phase) by annotating the media files using choices from system networks, coded as time-stamped annotations and visual overlays. The analysis is stored in a database for later search and retrieval. A crucial aspect of the design of this software, informed by systemic functional theory, is the capacity to integrate the full range of semiotic analyses, across ranks, strata and meta-function, within an empirically-derived holistic view on communication. The multimodal analyst can develop, test and apply different theoretical approaches and methodologies to code the analysis; and automated tools (e.g. shot detection, facial recognition, optical flow) provide further support to users of the software, extending the human capacities for perception and analysis.

In one case study, the software is used to investigate the bias in new reporting of climate change debate (Boykoff, 2011) in a video clip from ‘Happening Now’, a Fox News Corporation programme aired on 25 November 2009² (O’Halloran, Podlasov, Chua, & E, in press 2012). In this video, Jon Scott interviews Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, and Mr. Myron Ebell, Director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington DC. The interview took place immediately after the Climatic Research Unit email controversy involving the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia on 20 November 2009.

In the screenshot of the analysis in Figure 1, we see the close-up shot of interviewer Jon Scott looking directly at the audience with his professional attire (with contrasting red tie) and studio background. An electronic distortion guitar sound plays from the start of the video for about two seconds before fading out, then Jon Scott begins with the single word ‘Hackers’ from his first sentence “Hackers broke into the email accounts of several prominent scientists who were working on climate change”.  The word ‘hackers’ is significant in terms of its grammatical functions, which have been coded in the coloured strips in the bottom right hand side of Figure 1. That is, ‘hackers’ is significant in terms of textual meaning (it is the point of departure for what follows), interpersonal meaning (it is the subject) and experiential meaning (it is the agent for the action). It is perhaps for these reasons that the word is also mapped as a single tone unit (Halliday & Greaves, 2008).  The stage is set for a dramatic recount of events.

Figure 1. Multimodal Annotation of Fox News ‘Happening Now’:

Figure 2. Multimodal Choices. Scientists and Media and Business Professionals:

(a) Dr Trenberth

(b) Mr Myron Ebell

In Figure 2(a), we see that Dr Trenberth is framed by the Skype logo and a laptop (which rotates) on the left, his gaze is disengaged (he looks around constantly during the interview) and the background is an untidy bookshelf.  Dr Trenberth’s contributions to the interview are undermined with such multimodal choices, particularly when he has to respond to questions from Jon Scott, such as ‘That must feel pretty outrageous, huh?” in reference to the hacking of his emails. However, the multimodal choices for Mr Myron Ebell are similar for interviewer Jon Scott, except the background is Capitol Hill in Washington DC, and he is smiling (a smile which persists for much of the interview), as shown in Figure 2(b). From this brief overview, it is apparent that the multimodal choices for the media professional and the business person differ from those for the climate scientist, particularly in the realm of the interpersonal (e.g. engagement with the viewer), often in ways which work against the interests of the scientist.

The search results with the matching annotation units can be highlighted in the software, providing a visual overview which makes it possible to detect patterns in complex texts simply from viewing the annotations. However, many patterns are too complex for the human eye to process. Therefore, there is an export function in the software which permits the data to be imported into third-party software designed for large-scale data visualisation. For example, in Figure 3, the time-stamped annotation from the Fox News video has been imported into Matlab³ ready for analysis of recurring patterns across the different speakers (coded red, pink and black for Jon Scott, Dr Trenberth and Mr Myon Ebell respectively) for the linguistic choices, camera angle, gaze and framing. In this way, the software produces data for further analysis to identify patterns and trends in multimodal phenomena (Podlasov, Tan, & O’Halloran, accepted for publication; Tan, Podlasov, & O’Halloran, forthcoming).

Figure 3. Time – stamped Multimodal date (in Matlab):

Saussure, at the beginning of the twenty-first century foresaw the need for a holistic approach to the study of language and other sign systems, advocating a ‘science that studies the life of signs within society’ (Saussure 1974 [1916]: 16). Halliday’s social semiotic theory is a comprehensive response to that challenge, which provides powerful theoretical and descriptive resources for the study of meaning and communication. By undertaking sustained systemic analyses afforded by Halliday’s social semiotic theory, we can begin to see and thus understand how semiotic resources combine to create distinct semantic patterns and clusters in what Lotman (2005) calls ‘the semiosphere’, our world of abstract meaning known as society and culture.

Websites

1. See ‘Multimodal Digital Semiotics’ for a report on the Multimodal Analysis Lab, Interactive & Digital Media Institute (IDMI), National University of Singapore in Semiotix XN-4 (2011)

http://www.semioticon.com/semiotix/2011/02/multimodal-digital-semiotics/

2. http://video.foxnews.com/v/3945521/illegal-act

3. http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/index.html

References

Bateman, J. (2008). Multimodality and Genre: A Foundation for the Systematic Analysis of Multimodal Documents. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Boykoff, M. T. (2011). Who Speaks for the Climate? Making sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2005). Computational and Quantitative Studies: Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday (Volume 6). London and New York: Continuum.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2006). The Language of Science: Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday (Volume 5). London & New York: Continuum.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2009). Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday (10 Volumes). London & New York: Continuum.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Greaves, W. S. (2008). Intonation in the Grammar of English. London: Equinox.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press  [Republished by Oxford University Press 1989].

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed, revised by C. M. I. M Matthiessen ed.). London: Arnold.

Jewitt, C. (Ed.). (2009). Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006 [1996]). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying Meaning: Visual and Verbal Semiotics in Scientific Text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science (pp. 87-113). London: Routledge.

Lotman, Y. (2005). On the Semiosphere. Sign System Studies, 33(1), 201-229.

Machin, D. (2007). Introduction to Multimodal Analysis. London & New York: Hodder Arnold.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.

O’Donnell, M., & Bateman, J. (2005). SFL in Computational Contexts: A Contemporary History. In R. Hasan, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen & J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing Discourse on Language: Volume 1 (pp. 343-382). London: Equinox.

O’Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images. London and New York: Continuum.

O’Halloran, K. L. (2011). Multimodal Discourse Analysis. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), Companion to Discourse Analysis (pp. 120-137). London: Continuum.

O’Halloran, K. L., Podlasov, A., Chua, A., & E, M. K. L. (in press 2012). Interactive Software for Multimodal Analysis. Visual Communication, Special Issue: Methodologies.

O’Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., Smith, B. A., & Podlasov, A. (2011). Multimodal Analysis within an Interactive Software Environment: Critical Discourse Perspectives. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(2), 109-125.

O’Toole, M. (2011 [1994]). The Language of Displayed Art (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge.

Podlasov, A., Tan, S., & O’Halloran, K. L. (accepted for publication). Interactive State-Transition Diagrams for Visualization of Multimodal Annotation. Intelligent Data Analysis.

Saussure, F. de (1974 [1916]). Course in General Linguistics. (trans. Wade Baskin). London: Fontana/Collins.

Smith, B. A., Tan, S., Podlasov, A., & O’Halloran, K. L. (2011). Analyzing Multimodality in an Interactive Digital Environment: Software as Metasemiotic Tool. Social Semiotics, 21(3), 353-375.

Tan, S., Podlasov, A., & O’Halloran, K. L. (forthcoming). Re-Mediated Reality and Multimodality: Graphic Tools for Visualizing Patterns in Representations of On-line Business News.

van Leeuwen, T., Djonov, E., & O’Halloran, K. L. (forthcoming). “David Byrne Really Does Love PowerPoint”: Art as Research on Semiotics and Semiotic Technology.

Andrea Mayr

Halliday’s work has also contributed many of its analytical tools for the kind of linguistic analysis carried out in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). CDA is probably the most comprehensive attempt to develop a theory of the inter-connectedness of discourse, power and ideology. The term ‘critical’ principally means unravelling or ‘denaturalizing’ ideologies expressed in discourse and revealing how power structures are constructed and negotiated in and through discourse. CDA research specifically analyses institutional, political, gender and media discourses which ‘testify to more or less overt relations of struggle and conflict’ (Wodak 2001: 2). Because of its solid analytical foundation, Halliday’s work helps CDA practitioners to ground concerns about power and ideology in the detailed analysis of language. Both fields also share the view of language as socially constructed: language both shapes and is shaped by society.

Although the general thrust in CDA has been towards the analysis of linguistic structures, more recently there has been a visual turn inspired by scholars who have incorporated visual images into concepts of discourse and have moved towards broader multimodal conceptions (Kress and van Leeuwen 1996; Machin 2007). This extension of CDA into visual semiotics also has its origins in early Hallidayan theory which maintains that language is only one semiotic resource out of many and that several forms of representations, linguistic and non-linguistic, are used in the construction of discourse. For example, while political and ideological views of newspapers can be expressed in the choice of different vocabularies (e.g. ‘resistance fighters’ vs. ‘insurgents’) and different grammatical structures (e.g. active vs. passive constructions), visual structures in the form of images just as much can convey ideological meanings. Applying some of the linguistic principles found in SFL, Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA) therefore shows how images, photographs, diagrams and graphics also work to create meanings communicated by a text, which are often more implicit or indirect than language.

The work of Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) in particular has developed a set of tools derived from SFL that allows us to study the choices of visual features as well as lexical and grammatical choices in language. One of these tools is social actor analysis (van Leeuwen, 1996), a linguistic and visual inventory of the ways we can describe and classify people and some of the ideological effects that these classifications can have. According to van Leeuwen, people can be personalized or impersonalized, represented as specific individuals or as generic types. Certain naming strategies therefore foreground aspects of a person’s identity while backgrounding others. To illustrate this, let us briefly look at media representations of young people which often construct them as a problem. For example, in the following headlines taken from British (tabloid) newspapers

Hoodies to be banned from shopping centre

Yobs rule streets

Hoodie bike yobs attack teacher

Teenage mother was shot down by hoodies.

We find that by impersonalizing young people as ‘hoodies’ and ‘yobs’, they are “objectivised” and turned into generic types. A tabloid newspaper may refer to them as ‘hoodies’ throughout an article, obscuring who exactly these young people are who may have experienced poor education, have had few opportunities and have little to gain from and contribute to mainstream society.

Visually, often accompanying images are chosen with stereotypical and generic portrayals of these ‘hoodies’ on housing estates. In the image below, we see three generic ‘hoodies’, with one looking straight at the viewer. Kress and van Leeuwen would call this a ‘demand’ image act, drawing on Halliday’s (1985) notion of speech acts. Just like the language, the imagery used – the generic picture of threatening young men in hooded tops and tracksuits – foregrounds their deviance and backgrounds structural reasons. Images like this are not meant to document but symbolize a certain type of young people. Language and image are used to form part of wider media discourses on young people that are ideological in the sense that they create patterns of inclusion (‘teenage mother’ as one of ‘us’) and exclusion (‘yob’ and ‘hoodies’ as others) and direct attention away from the links between poverty, lack of opportunity and deviance that often characterize the lives of these young people.

This brief discussion has served to illustrate the important role Halliday’s ideas have played in research conducted in CDA. Looking at language and images from a combined SFL and CDA approach means that we can begin to grasp how language and visuals are chosen in a given situation and also to suggest why certain communicative choices are made and not others.

When I joined Continuum (which is now part of the Bloomsbury Academic Group) back in 2007, the publishing of Professor Michael Halliday’s “Collected Works” was in full motion. It had a staggered release.  The first volume, “On Grammar”, was published in hardback in September 2002.  The last volume, “Language in Society”, published in HB in May 2007.  Somewhere, there is some Platonic ‘ideal’ of a major reference work that publishes on time, first time, all in hardback, as a set, and then makes its way in the world.  It would sell hundreds of copies as a 10 volume set ISBN.  It would generally be trouble-free.  But we make do with real world scenarios: the volumes came out as they were ready, being as they were a labour of love and attention, and arrived to great acclaim and breathless endorsements from esteemed linguists.This ten volume collection of Halliday’s collected output had many originators.  With most projects in an academic publishing house, the emphasis is firmly on allocating it to a commissioning editor, and my predecessor in the job, Jenny Lovel (now at Macmillan), certainly had her part to play, along with a line of people who had looked after the Continuum linguistics list from its inception.  I myself have helped along the paperback releases of Volumes 6-10, and oversaw their transition to an age of print on demand, which required new covers and a switch to Printer Paper Case from Blocked Cloth.  But these are mere details.  Printing overstock on the metallic ink jackets is a curio that might be best left in 2008. (There were, for the longest time, a large pile of spare CDs for one of the volumes, too, until the magic of the internet allowed us to post it all online).What I want to do is shift the focus back onto the editor – Professor Jonathan Webster, and also, of course, the great man himself, Professor Halliday.  The gestation of the work is, naturally, the product of a lifetime’s thought and productivity: and to hope that 10 static volumes could capture that maelstrom of academic thinking and intellectually limber theorizing is optimistic at best.  But the curation of these works – the sourcing, the digitization, the permissions clearance – was handled by a dedicated team, led by the indefatigable Jonathan.  I have had the pleasure of looking through the files for these works and they are laden with carefully typed faxes to and from Michael Halliday, talking about the proofs, sent from Australia to a busy London publishing office where his words were being turned into a gorgeous set of 10 books, each bound in a metallic ink dust jacket.Later on, came companion volumes – the “Essential Halliday”, for instance, takes all 10 volumes and condenses it along the lines of key words, forming a fine, hard volume of a high density.  We published a “Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics” which Professor Halliday was also involved in.
Looking back at the set, I wonder what we could do with it.  And people want from it, now.  Does it need to be available in app form? Or on the Android Market? Should it be downloadable as an ePub?  Do people want it made open-access and would free HTML text mean we could break even with voluntary purchases of Print on Demand paper copies?  Do academics still want to hold a book, press it to their hands and face and smell that unmistakable smell?  Does it matter if the paper is acid-free, cream, or white, and does it matter so much if the text is laser ink on bleached white or litho on cream gilt-edged?  You tell me: my email address is easily searchable.  The more that we move away from the traditional models of publishing, the more that the latter object becomes absolutely a thing of the past.  To make research available free, at the point of demand, means no more lithographic print runs that look absolutely stunning under library light and that gain gravitas as they yellow with age.  It means a PPC dominated world of print-on-demand paper that ages in a different way: satisfying in its own way, as a stack of reading matter that’s been photocopied attains its own kind of aura ten years on.  But different.  Fundamentally different.And so back, to the “Collected Works”: they exist as one of the pinnacles of our backlist, and I’m open to suggestions as to what to do with them.  Certainly, they’ve provided much enjoyment to many nimble-minded academics across the world. They look great, and they have sold copies, and the new incarnations look just as good.  As an academic editor, I can’t ask for much more than that.

Translated & edited by Mikolaj Sobocinski

Tomasz Komendzinski

I understand that you are creating an innovative pluridisciplinary centre at the Copernicus University in Torun (Poland). What is the purpose of this centre and which disciplines will it involve?

At first, it could be useful to point out some similarities between universities and hospitals. In those institutions there are numerous spheres of human activities, both theoretical and practical, that converge. In medicine it is impossible to have a doctor successfully treat a particular organ as an independent entity without a broader understanding of the whole organism and its complex dynamics. The innovativeness of our Interdisciplinary Centre for Modern Technologies (ICMT) is characterized by its open approach which will make it possible to perceive both the parts and the whole. In other words, I believe that we will be able to go beyond the narrow interdisciplinarity commonly associated with some studies to develop a broader interdisciplinarity as a means of reaching true transdisciplinarity.

The narrow interdisciplinary approach has functioned quite well within the natural sciences and within the humanities. What academics do within these modes of interdisciplinarity remains in  conformity with the model of the two cultures which was described by Charles P. Snow half a century ago (The Two Cultures 1959 and The Two Cultures and a Second Look 1963). Although such an approach seemed to benefit the empirical sciences and the humanities, this kind of interdisciplinarity has made it extremely complicated to relate in a single explanatory framework both the facts described in empirical studies and those belonging to the sphere of culture. Just as the introduction of the third culture was supposed to bridge the gap between by two cultures, our Centre will endeavour to enrich the narrow interdisciplinary approach by developing its broader equivalent to encompass both the empirical sciences and the humanities. Unfortunately, there is a natural tendency to favour quick results in the narrow approach over long-term studies conducted in the broader approach. Only when one thinks in terms of innovative projects is it possible to see advantages in the long run. I hope that ICMT is going to prove the latter approach more beneficial. Our Centre involves four major clusters: (1) academic (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and the Fine Arts); (2) medical; (3) clinical (due to the interdisciplinary nature of hospital care); and finally (4) the cognitive sciences (already in the process of building bridges between various narrow interdisciplinary studies).

Why are you creating neuro-cognitive laboratories at your Centre in Toruń?

Interdisciplinary Centre of Modern Technologies

If I were to mention particular people responsible for the shape of things to come, I would have to say a few words about Prof. Włodzisław Duch and a large group of researchers who pressed for the creation of cognitive laboratories and a proper research centre for years. Describing their efforts, however, would take me hours so let me start by saying that thanks to them we may skip the period of narrow interdisciplinarity, which was unavoidable in America (e.g., traditional computationism), when developing Polish cognitive studies. We can achieve this great leap thanks to conferences we have been organising since 2006 such as Cognitive Autumn in Torun (CAT), and to our new annual event Torun NeuroCulture Meeting (TNCM). But this preparatory stage goes even further back to 1991 when Wieslaw Mincer and I edited the international interdisciplinary journal Theoria et Historia Scientiarum which was also known as An International Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies. In 2003 we were impressed by the papers collected in Embodiment and Awareness: Perspectives from Phenomenology and Cognitive Science edited by Shaun Gallagher and Natalie Depraz  in memory of Francisco Varela. The origin of our interests should be found in the notions of embodied mind, embodied cognition, and embodiment in general, which later led to studying cognitive linguistics, and cognitive theories of metaphors. As a result we organised cognitive conferences and published Cognitive Science, Metaphor and Conceptual Blending (2001), special issues of Theoria et Historia Scientiarum like Metaphor. A multidisciplinary Approach (2002), or later Metaphor and Cogniton (2008) prepared with the help of Prof. Zdzisław Wąsik. The cornerstone for our development was marked by Embodied Mind published by Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson and Eleanor Rosch in 1991. Eventually, such a background influenced our choice and decision to open the BIA Lab (Body Inter-Action Laboratory), which I am especially fond of. And this is only one of a few laboratories we plan for our Centre within its 4^th Research Project Neuroimaging, Neuropsychology and Neurobiology of Cognitive Functions. Obviously there will be much more happening within all the other projects as well. Also if you want to learn something about our students, you will see similar cognitive interests in their journal Avant.

So,can you tell us something more about the BIA Lab (Body Inter-Action Laboratory)?

Well, the BIA Lab is becoming an integral part of the ICMT thanks to which we can meet the challenge of the third culture. We will be able to create research teams answering the needs of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies, where we will be able to address social issues, everyday problems, and not only some lofty academic theories. So, the ICMT, especially from the perspective of the BIA Lab as a part of the 4^th Research Project, is becoming a place to merge studies by representatives coming from the two different cultures, the humanities and the natural sciences. In this manner we aim not only at being innovative in terms of our findings and discoveries but also with respect to cooperation and applied methodology. For me personally, it is going to be a testing ground for my belief in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies as I describe them in my latest book Enactivism: The Research Platform for Interdisciplinary Investigations and Unity of Science and Philosophy (2011) where I expound my personal understanding of the research agenda. Enactivism is represented by five investigative programs: (1) biosemiotics; (2) radical constructivism; (3) social and evolutionary robotics; (4) distributed cognition; (5) and neuro-phenomenology; at its core, enactivism holds 3Es and MC, which stand for Embodied, Extended, Embedded, and Motor Cognition. That is the basis for our future projects at the BIA Lab.

What will be the relevance of this centre for the advancement of semiotics?

That is more of a question about what we understand by semiotics and how we expect to conduct our research within semiotics. It is not only a discussion about the full-fledged methodology dealing with signs in a variety of theoretical contexts. If semiotics is to be perceived as a proper scientific domain, it must be present wherever new trends arise. Today’s semiotics handles narrow interdisciplinarity quite well, and it has managed to do so since its origins in the writings of Charles S. Peirce. I saw that clearly when preparing my doctoral dissertation The Sign and its Continuity: C. S. Peirce’s Semiotics between Perception and Reception (1996). It was already at that time that I started comparing some research tools for the semiotic study of reception. Peirce’s semiotics especially seems to be rewarding here, maybe because Ch. S. Peirce was engrossed in many distinct fields and favoured experimental studies. After all, his influence on experimental psychology makes him its founding father together with William James. It is precisely that experimental approach to semiotics and to communication as well which will enable us to realize many of Peirce’s dreams right here in our Centre, where representatives of the two cultures, the natural sciences and the humanities, will be able to meet and work together. The principle of the third culture inspires our theory and methodology with respect to embodiment, embodied mind, cognition, and enactivism as it stresses the importance of our efforts, both intellectual and institutional. As a consequence, we are confident that our Centre with its BIA Lab and other neuro-cognitive laboratories will enable us to achieve new results. Setting biosemiotics as one of the key programs within the research platform makes it possible to develop semiotics as an experimental field. You can find a similar approach to semiotics in Bruno Galantucci’s Experimental Semiotics: A New Approach for Studying Communication as a Form of Joint Action (2009). It is in this context that we endeavour to treat semiotics and communication research experimentally, using all the resources of interdisciplinarity in the broad sense. This is what we want to do in the BIA Lab – to attract researchers from many backgrounds who want to cooperate with our Centre.

Does your initiative create political problems with the other departments and with the university administration?

When talking about interdisciplinary research, transdisciplinary in particular, there are two major tendencies. The first one is to maintain the status quo concerning narrow interdisciplinarity; the second relates to the drive towards maximising profits, towards the highest possible impact factor. The basic problem in universities is the need to uphold the traditional division of the two cultures because one guarantees high impact factor while the other is seen as incapable of fulfilling such a warrant. In general, administrations do not support such innovations as they are risky and do not promise recurrence of profits. For this reason we are more than happy that our university authorities supported us from the start, which was a prerequisite for finalising such a big project like the creation of the ICMT.

How do you solve these problems? What advice could you give to others who would like to imitate your initiative at their own universities?

The golden mean seems to rest in establishing foundations for education and research simultaneously. It is necessary to bind projects with researchers, who at the same time teach students about their own work and accepted paradigms. In other words, from the very beginning, it is imperative to plan education with respect to desired research projects, and allow one’s research to influence education. In our case, these two goals relied on the positive reception of past conferences, the support of the Polish Society for Cognitive Science, and the success of the journal Cognitive Science and Media in Education, as well as the willingness to apply new knowledge (research) and employ interdisciplinary researchers (education). So on the one hand, re-shaping education, and, on the other hand, creating the environment for interdisciplinary research, seem to do the trick. These two elements may insure the success of innovative approaches; they may balance the mono-cultural nature of narrow interdisciplinary studies. Of course academic administrations always follow their own rules and needs, but it seems that integration and cooperation will eventually play a major role in securing their support.

A question about Polish education – can it answer any important needs?

Tomasz Komendzinski and his students

Education has always been important especially when introducing something innovative. Cognitive Science is only beginning its journey in Polish education and research. However, it is becoming essential due to the changes within Cognitive Science at present and what can be expected in the near future. We know much more about the human brain, subjectivity, and individuality than ever before. Education must face the rapidly developing Internet civilisation and the omnipresence of virtual reality. Communication has become such an important factor that it would be impossible not to include it in education; it must become a part of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies bridging semiotics and communicology. Such a belief directed me towards the International Communicology Institute and that is why I was invited to become one of its Fellows.

What kind of research will be conducted at the  ICMT? What kind of problems would you like to solve?

The ICMT will play an important role as its aim is to conduct various research projects, from theoretical developments to applied experiments. More importantly, we are not going to limit ourselves to the usual selection of sciences, e.g., physics. It seems that the ICMT will be mostly driven towards applied research in order to promote the economic development of our region. We want to repay our benefactors in Poland and the EU. Without any doubt sustainable growth will play a major role in our endeavours. When someone wishes to apply for EU funding, you see how important sustainable growth has become for conducting interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies. Let me mention the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development) where you will find the Centre for Educational Research & Innovation (CERI) – Brain & Learning. If you read the documents published around the CERI conference, you will find that the ICMT fits the new mainstream approach to neuro-education and neuro-science, and that its aims meet the current needs for such innovations. So, coming back to your question, it seems that the new focus rests on the flow of information, the media, virtual reality merging with the real world, and on their consequences for our identity. It is just a gist of what we are likely to do at the ICMT and in our BIA Lab. If you want to know more just visit our web page. Naturally, we will welcome proposals for cooperation from scholars and centres which share our commitment to the goals of the ICMT.

 

Tomasz Komendzinski is Assistant Professor in the Department of Cognitive Science and Epistemology at the Institute of Philosophy  of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun (Poland). He fosters a long-standing interest in interdisciplinary studies, cognitive science, semiotics, communication, and communicology. His research bears upon embodied mind and cognition, enactivism, and neurophenomenology. Contact: tomasz.komendzinski@umk.pl

 

Meeting Dr. Komendzinski.

Mikolaj Sobocinski

I first met Dr. Tomasz Komendzinski in 2005 when I asked my friends at the English department if there were any interesting discussions or seminars on semiotics in the neighbourhood. It turned out that just next door — our departments were virtually next to each other about 100 metres apart — there was this guy who encouraged reading and discussing rather than memorizing endless facts before exams. For the next two years I  spent more time at various seminars taught in the departments of philosophy and sociology than at my home Faculty of Languages. A highly qualified and dedicated staff had somehow managed to find themselves in the right place at the right time and created something magical, a real think-tank where it was possible to learn through discussions and where there was never enough homework. Every week we read publications in English, well before anyone could envisage translating them into Polish. As Tomasz and his friends stressed it: if you want to find links between philosophy and science, you and your students must be able to read and discuss the most current publications.  Knowing foreign languages was one of the key factors enabling them to pursue the dream of a vibrant and important academic centre. Besides Dr. Tomasz Komendzinski I must mention Prof. Urszula Zeglen, Dr. Krzysztof Abriszewski, Dr Aleksandra Derra, Dr Ewa Binczyk, Dr Tomasz Jarmuzek and many other PhD and MA students who attended those seminars. Every month, and sometimes even every week, there was a conference, a guest lecture, an additional seminar, etc. conducted by Polish and foreign academics. This was the heart of heated debates between biologists, neurolinguists, cognitive linguists, sociologists, philosophers and what-not. Therefore it comes to me as no surprise that in such a milieu, after many years of hard work and preparations, a new Centre for Modern Technologies is created with their support and cooperation. I applaud my friends for their efforts and achievements and wish them all the best. This time not only for the sake of our debates, but for the sake of the academic and scientific world, Nikolaus Copernicus University inTorun has become a prominent centre for both Astronomy and Modern Technology.

Mikolaj Sobocinski

Mikolaj Sobocinski graduated from Nicolaus Copernicus University writing a thesis on semiotics of film and war posters, and of press photography. He also attended courses taught by dr Tomasz Komendzinski and his friends both at the sociology and philosophy departments. At the moment he works at Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz where he finalises his studies in metropolitan discourse. His doctoral thesis on verbal proxemics will be defended in near future. His interests focus around pragmasemiotics and sociolinguistics with an inclination towards urban semiotics and urban studies conducted by his friends at the geography department. Last year he organised a panel devoted to Pro. Ron Scollon’s heritage at the International Pragmatics Association Conference, and this year he is hosting a study visit on the development and improvement of education systems in EU. Contact: mik.sobocinski<at>gmail.com

Dante Suarez

Simulation is a creative and epistemologically-delicate process that has attracted growing attention since the 1990s, both in the natural and the social sciences. It is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time. The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics or behavior of the selected physical or abstract system or process. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system overtime. The crucial role of simulation in theorizing, modelling, and understanding complex systems, and its increasing use for decision-making in concrete problems and/or public policy, has led the theorizing of simulation to an entirely new level of attention. At the same time, a huge community of researchers are utilizing simulation with a set of tools, methods, and concepts, in an intense cross-disciplinary atmosphere, with obvious interest in investigating the conditions for the successful use of simulation. The recognition that progress in the science of simulation must go hand in hand with the semiotic analysis of its epistemological status has been an important motivation for the organization of the Epistemological Perspectives on Simulation (EPOS) workshops since 2004.

The first EPOS workshop, organized by Ulrich Frank and Klaus Troitzsch in 2004 at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany, was successful in bringing together researchers from the social, natural and computational sciences, as well as philosophers of science, to debate and elaborate on epistemological perspectives of simulation. The results of the meeting were published, after a further reviewing process, in a special issue of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation (volume 8(4), 2005). The second EPOS workshop, organized by Flaminio Squazzoni in 2006 at the University of Brescia, Italy, amplified this constructive atmosphere. Once more the positive and constructive outcome that the encounter of researchers and philosophers of science produces became clear. The articles were collected by Squazzoni, Troitzsch, and Frank after a further reviewing process, and have been published in Epistemological Aspects of Computer Simulation in the Social Sciences: Second International Workshop, EPOS 2006, Brescia, Italy, October 5-6, 2006 (Springer, Berlin, 2009). The third EPOS workshop was organized by Nuno David, José Castro Caldas, and Helder Coelho, Portugal. It took place in Lisbon, Portugal, October 2-3, 2008. Again the workshop provided an excellent multidisciplinary forum for researchers from various disciplines, such as the social sciences, economics, computer science, engineering, natural sciences or philosophy to discuss epistemological aspects of simulation. Moreover, the workshop attracted a considerable number of researchers from overseas. A selection of papers presented there was published in a special issue of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation (volume 13(1), 2010). The fourth EPOS workshop, organized by Matthias Meyer and Klaus G. Troitzsch, on June 23-25, 2010, continued the growing tradition of these workshops and their lively atmosphere. Like its predecessors, it provided a forum for interdisciplinary exchange and discussion. Moreover, it benefited from the evident growth of contributions in the literature on the methodology and epistemology of simulation since the first meeting in 2004. A selection of papers is currently under review for publication in a special issue of Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory.

Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas

The fifth edition of Epistemological Perspectives on Simulation will be held at Trinity University, in San Antonio, Texas (USA). It will be the first one to be organized outside Europe. It will bring together simulation experts, modelers, scientists and philosophers of science to share the latest advancements in simulation technology, its applications, as well as potential benefits and drawbacks. Like its predecessors the workshop wants to provide a forum for researchers from various disciplines, such as the social sciences, computer science, engineering or the natural sciences, who are interested in discussing epistemological aspects of simulation across disciplinary boundaries. Topics to be addressed in the workshop include, but are not restricted to issues such as the epistemology of simulation, credentials for model building, and standards for presenting and analyzing simulation results. Following the tradition of previous EPOS workshops, we will publish a selection of the accepted papers in a special issue of a journal after a further reviewing process. This time, there will be a special issue of the International Journal of Agent Technologies and Systems (IJATS). We encourage all interested scholars to attend the conference, whether to present a full-length paper, a position paper, or simply to participate in the discussion.

The event will have a broad scope and be fully interdisciplinary. Some examples of questions that this workshop will address include:

• How simulation differs from traditional methodologies in its description of reality?
• In which ways is it a better methodology?
• For which real-world phenomena is simulation best suited?
• Through simulation, researchers can often model a more detailed representation of physical, natural and social phenomena. What aspects of reality are best understood through simulation?
• How should the methodology of simulation be evaluated and validated? Should increase predictive capacity be the evaluating norm?
• How do different levels of reality interact? How can model interaction address this coexistence and thus allow for the creation of meta-simulations and macro-modeling?
• How can agency be understood in context?
• Can simulation help us develop more precise languages to express social phenomena?

The fifth instalment of EPOS will be held at Trinity University, in San Antonio Texas, USA, on October 10 – 12, 2012. The event’s purpose is to bring together European, North American and other international researchers to discuss the latest advances in simulation theory and applications.

Important deadlines are as follows:

July 1, 2012: Submission of papers or extended abstracts
August 21, 2012: Notification of acceptance
September 15, 2012: Receipt of full papers
October 10-12, 2012: Workshop, San Antonio, Texas, USA

The costs of the conference are set to cover the price of meals, entertainment and transportation:

$280 USD regular fee

$180 USD for students

Authors are requested to send their papers (about 5,000-8,000 words) or an extended abstract of about 1000 words in electronic format (.doc, .rtf or .pdf format) via e-mail to Dante Suarez (epos@trinity.edu). Authors should include all the details about surname, first name, affiliation, mailing address, country, and e-mail inside the e-mail text (not inside the abstract). Each abstract will be reviewed by two members of the program committee at least. The committee will consider also abstracts, although full papers are preferred. For any information, please contact Dante Suarez (esuarez@trinity.edu).

More information is available at:   www.trinity.edu/epos

VISIT SAN ANTONIO

San Antonio, Texas

More than 26 million people visit San Antonio each year and experience the city’s cultural diversity. From Spanish colonial rule to Texas independence, and ultimately statehood, San Antonio draws from its history and intense cultural fusion–so much so, that the city once had street signs in three languages: Spanish, English, and German.

Walk back in time to colonial Spanish days at one of San Antonio’s five missions that spread European culture and converted the native people to Christianity— forever changing the face of the Southwest. In the 18th century, the Spanish church established the five Catholic missions along the San Antonio River, primarily to extend its dominion northward from Mexico, but also to convert the native population. What remains of the largest concentration of missions in North America provides an interesting look into Texas’ history.

The first mission established in San Antonio, the Alamo served as a way station between east Texas and Mexico. It was already 100 years old when it fell in the notorious Battle of the Alamo and became an inspiration and a motivation for liberty during the Texas Revolution, and it is now one of the most important icons of history in the United States.

San Antonio, Texas

San Antonio has one of the most interesting emerging contemporary art scenes in the world. In May 2011, American Style magazine named San Antonio one of America’s top 25 cities for art. San Antonio’s deep, rich connections to Latin America, the American frontier west, and African American culture figure prominently in the local art scene.
Sparked by San Antonio’s long history as an international crossroads, the city’s lively art scene reflects the city’s confluence of cultures. As the city’s reputation as an artistic hub spreads, more visitors are venturing off the River Walk to where the city’s creative tribe lives, works and plays.

I have no mockings or arguments, I witness and wait. “

– Walt Whitman, “Song of Myself”

There is a point in most social gatherings where the discussion veers onto the topic of what you do. In liminal places like the inside of a cab, that point of the conversation might arrive quite early. At a party, it might arrive when richer and less personal topics have run dry. My explanation is always, “I work in publishing”. The next question is usually, “oh, what kind?” And then I say “I’m an editor at an academic publishing house.” Then, there is a little pause, while a person fashions or readjusts their expectations. Here is how it should have gone, in their mind. “I’m an editor”, I say. “Oh, really, what house?”. “I work in trade at Faber. I commission novels.” We both smile. Then we could proceed to talk about what they have read recently, which classic novels really deserve to be in the canon, if such a concept even exists, and also, have I commissioned a book they’ve read? Do I spent all my evenings at parties? Do I know Ian McKewan or Will Self? More champagne?

Well, no. I’ve met both of them, it is true: but in passing. I work in academic publishing and I commission in linguistics. Explaining the mechanics of a complicated and varied academic list takes time, and effort, and a knowledge of the UK and worldwide higher education market. And so I take the easy route out, especially with members of my family where we could easily re-route the topic to which cousin turned up drunk at which wedding. “I publish textbooks,” I say. And we move on.

I work in academic publishing though because it is something that I believe in, and something that I think has intrinsic value and worth to society. In a world of ephemera and conspicuous consumption, 80,000 words on a difficult to grasp yet important and salient theoretical point is something that I can get behind. A (good) introductory textbook is something I believe in. And hence the Whitman quote, which I (hope) illustrates that I attend each conference, pick up each phone call and answer each email with a renewed optimism that there will be dialogue, engagement and mutual enrichment. It is of course slightly tongue in cheek – I have at various conferences also ‘sweated through a fog of linguists and contenders’ with more than a passing dread of the next revised PhD proposal. But I have no mocking or arguments. Like Emerson’s transparent eyeball, like the American transcendental, we’re aiming to be the impartial observers and manipulators. One must have been in academic publishing a long time, to understand the A-head, to paraphrase Wallace Stevens. More than just ‘handing content’, I’d like to be there for authors as a person to go to talk through ideas, prose, wording of phrases. In a hurried world where there is always another book to commission, it is nice to have coffee and talk about the progress of a difficult work. And so, a 101 – an introduction – YOUR introduction – to being an academic editor, for those reading this blog. I’ll write the next chapter on proposals, maybe.

Gurdeep Mattu

Send me an email, call me up – about your own writing plans, your dreams and aspirations. Not everything will be REF-able, or fit into a core text. But the next “Syntactic Structures” is out there and it could have your name against it, if only we preserve the dialogue and stop feeling as if because the work we do is more difficult to grasp than the concept of publishing bestselling fiction novels, that it only deserves to be discussed in 10pt Arial within the confines of an Outlook server.  Let us release the concept into the social spheres that it draws its data from, linguists/contenders…

Thinking, Fast and Slow. By Daniel Kahneman. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. 2011 (499 pages).

Nobel prize winner for Economic Sciences, Daniel Kahneman wrote this hefty volume in part as a tribute to his late friend, Amos Tversky (1937 – 1996) whom he credits for having largely contributed to the ideas which earned him the prestigious award. Couched in a crystal-clear style and conducted at a leisurely pace, this book is addressed to a general educated audience. It retraces the path taken by these two psychologists toward redefining the profile of Homo economicus.  At a time when many are puzzled by the unpredictability of the economy, Kahneman endeavours to recount how he and his friend developed over the years a psychological explanation of why humans make decisions which are not as rational as traditional economic theories contended. Their own theory, although it fell short of enabling us to predict the outcome of the messy conundrum of economic decision making, at least provides some explanations based on the nature of the human brain.

But there is more to this semi-autobiographical work as the author offers a comprehensive interpretation of the human condition assumedly caught between two systems of thinking a term by which he means the process of making decisions: on the one hand, the fast processes which drive us to act spontaneously in response to the situations we encounter; and, on the other hand, the slow processes of explicitly reasoning which intervene when the former fail to deliver. Although some statistics pop up at times in the discussion, the method followed in the demonstration is essentially qualitative including, for instance, deceivingly simple equations such as: “success = talent + luck” and “great success = a little more talent + a lot of luck” (p. 177).  The most enjoyable aspect of the book is Kahneman’s recollections of the conversations he had with his friend while they were strolling in the countryside. He makes us privy to the informal way in which the counterintuitive ideas which brought them international fame emerged from casual dialogues often primed by the question “what if ….?”

The book is divided into five parts: (1) Two systems, 19-105; (2) Heuristics and biases, 109-195; (3) Overconfidence, 199-265; (4) Choices, 269-374; (5) Two selves, 377-418. Appendix A (419-432) is a reprint of the seminal article on judgment under uncertainty which Tversky and Kahneman published in Science, vol. 185, in 1974. Appendix B (433-448) reproduces an article on choices, values, and frames by Kahneman and Tversky which appeared in American Psychologist, vol. 34, in 1984. The notes and the index are found in the last fifty pages of the book.  Like many such books which are targeting a general readership, the references are not integrated into the text but are found in notes numerically organized chapter by chapter at the end of the volume. From chapter to chapter we are presented with empirical and anecdotal evidence, as well as thought experiments, purporting to prove that all our decisions are reached at times by a kind of default semiotic automaton, and at other times by a consciously computing brain which explicitly uses rational algorithms. Countless insightful inferences regarding the ways informational inputs relate to behavioral outputs could be interestingly translated into the metalanguage of semiotics. But, more importantly, the focus of this fundamental reflection on the decisional dimension of the mind calls our attention to the fact that central concepts of semiotics such as decoding and interpretation are instances of decisions and should be conceptualized as such. Recasting some semiotic questions into the epistemological language of Kahneman and Tversky could open novel perspectives in the study of signs in social life.

But critical semioticians will undoubtedly resist the dichotomies suggested first by System 1 and System 2 (28-39), and, later in the volume, by “experienced utility” and “decision utility” which lead to the quasi-ontological opposition between “the experiencing self” and “the remembering self” (378-390). Although Kahneman, at times, qualifies his dichotomies of “useful fictions”, there is a risk that many readers will take them for granted. The human mind is fond of these kinds of broad categorizations which bring apparent order to the chaos of experience by providing an all-encompassing formula to classify events and behaviours. Hegelian dialectic, Freudian topicality, the brain’s hemispheric specialization, Peircean triads, religious dichotomies, and cultural binarism are examples of such algorithms which become easily viral and are prompt to spread among large populations.  Their explanatory power, though, is delusional because the universal patterns they propose are precisely what needs to be explained.

From a methodological point of view, Kahneman’s approach considers the brain as a “black box”. References to the neurosciences are sparse and confined to the very last chapters. This is not the case for the next book under review, Simplexity, which address similar problems but from the inside out, so to speak.

Simplexity. By Alain Berthoz. Translated by Giselle Weiss. Yale University Press. 2012  (265 pages).

This book’s title is almost a pun. It is coined by both contrast and similarity with the term “complexity” which refers to states of affair which challenge our understanding through the sheer number of their components and their mutual relationships. In a complex world, there cannot be simple solutions to the innumerable problems encountered by evolving organisms. But there are nevertheless solutions which make it possible for surviving organisms to constantly respond as fast as necessary to the never-ending assaults of their environment. If they don’t, they simply disappear. Adaptations are efficient expedients but they carry a cost. They must meet innumerable challenges with appropriate speed and robustness. This means that they must have happened to evolve relatively simple solutions by natural selection in spite of the inherent complexity of the organisms which have packed layers upon layers of entangled neural networks within the limited space of their cranium. Simplex solutions cannot, of course, be simplistic.

The project of simulating the entire human brain is probably the most daunting enterprise ever conceived. The Blue Brain Simulation, a prototype for the Human Brain Project, constructs simulated sections of cortex from the bottom up, starting from detailed models of individual neurons (Nature, Vol. 482, 23 February 2012, p. 457). Such a direct confrontation with the actual complexity of the brain is met by scepticism. However, for the proponents of the project, current advances in simulation computing and in the understanding of neural networks will make this goal achievable during the current century. But in the absence of the big picture, many neuronal architectures and functional processes have already been identified and partially understood in some regions of the brain. Some of these processes are remarkably adaptive although the way they exploit the neuronal resources available is complex and, at times, convoluted, taking detours to reach their goals.

This is the quality which the author attempts to capture by the term “simplex”. Signalling processes, if not all semiotic behaviors, have necessarily evolved as instances of “simplexity” which transform information into adaptive anticipatory behavior. In some respects, Berthoz’s volume somewhat contributes to filling the “black box” of Kahneman’s System 1.  By the same token, it casts light on the numerous “black boxes” which the semiotic discourse tends to gloss over.

This book was initially published in French in 2009 and makes constant references (through notes) to the neuro-scientific literature from the first decade of this century, a time of great advances including some which were achieved by the author of the volume and his laboratory. It is comprised of twelve chapters organized into three parts. As the titles of the parts are purely metaphorical, the enumeration of the chapters themselves will provide a more accurate reflection of the contents:  1. Making the complex simplex; 2. Sketching a theory of simplexity; 3. Gaze and empathy; 4. Attention; 5. The brain as emulator and creator of worlds; 6. Simplexity in perception; 7. The laws of natural movement; 8. The simplex gesture; 9. Walking: a challenge to complexity; 10.  Simplex space; 11. Perceiving, experiencing, and imagining space; 12. The spatial foundation of rational thought.

Alain Berthoz is a neurologist whose research has advanced the scientific knowledge of the human body in motion. He is also conversant with the languages and issues of philosophy, and often refers to poets, artists and musicians in his examples. It is both challenging and enlightening to work one’s way through a volume which embodies the third culture, building bridges between the humanities and the natural sciences without compromising either, an endeavour which should be an inspiration for contemporary semiotics. It is indeed high time that semioticians move from simplistic to simplex models. Perusing Berthoz’s book could contribute to a healthy emancipation from their infatuation with the few fascinating categories which have been inherited from the past and have proved to be unable to open up new epistemological horizons.

Elements of Meaning in Gesture. By Geneviève Calbris. Translated by Mary M. Copple. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2011 (378 pages).

Geneviève Calbris’s research on gestures has produced over the years a fascinating constellation of data. The sheer number of her observations and recordings can make one dizzy trying to figure out the organizing pattern in this rich carpet. This is not particular to her work, though. The field of gesture research is long on data and short on theory. But her way of meticulously capturing gestural details in relation to speech is exemplary. Countless utterances have been recorded and coded as two lines, the upper one showing the written interpretation of the speech rather than its phonic realization, and the lower one indicating through a variety of symbols the gestures which accompany the delivery of the sentences. Some generalizations are proposed along the way but the whole book remains anchored in an accumulation of data and metadata since some of them are tagged with categorizations. This potential database, though, is not exploited by higher levels of computerization and hardly goes beyond an open-ended repertory of gesture-speech correlations.

The title of her book, Elements of Meaning in Gesture, clearly indicates that the author stands clear from making excessive theoretical claims regarding the results of her research. That gestures are meaningful is not in doubt. It is a matter of common sense, if not a tautology since erratic and disorganized movements of the limbs would not be called gestures but would be considered symptoms of some neurological pathology. What kind of meaning is conveyed by gestures, and to which extent this meaning is autonomous or dependent on other factors is what is at stake. What is the respective part of cultural habits and universal constraints in the dynamic patterns which are observed is a question which has been inconclusively debated. There has been a persistent search for constants and norms in studies which, by necessity, deal exclusively with individual instances of gesturing rife with idiosyncratic elements and for which true experimentation is hard to conceive and implement. There are epistemological limits to the knowledge which can be gained from empirical studies which consist of eliciting gestural responses in carefully built contexts. Calbris is undoubtedly mindful of these problems and modestly uses “elements” as an indefinite grammatical category in the title of her book. It is indeed a rich collection of documented gestures which are tentatively classified with respect to their assumed grammatical, semiotic, or social functions in French cultural contexts and in relation to the spoken French language of some social groups with various regional variants. Of course, these are samples from which generalizations can only be tentative. But very few books in the field of gesture research offer the same level of phenomenological perceptiveness. It is, in many respects, a French equivalent of Ray Birdwhistell’s collection of essays, Kinesics and Context (1950/1970), which documented gestures among English-speaking North-Americans. Calbris refers to this early work but mistakenly blames its author for “[not having taken] into account gestures used in everyday life” (p. 42). Birdwhistell’s celebrated analysis of a family breakfast is indeed such a compelling analysis. Calbris does not endorse, though, the same linguistic model as her predecessor and does not assume that gestures are structured like languages in the examples she considers.

After the first chapter which introduces the reader to the definition and discussion of “the gestural sign and related key concepts”, the book is divided into four parts. I. The function of gesture in relation to speech; II. The systematic organization of gestural signs; III. The symbolic relations between gestures and notions; IV.  The gestural sign in utterance. The conclusion (p. 344-354) summarizes and justifies the method which has been followed and specifies the theoretical frame upon which it was based, essentially a phenomenology derived from Merleau-Ponty.  A few hypotheses are formulated regarding, for instance, the anticipatory function of gestures with respect to notions, the iconic origin of language, and the multimodal system of human communication. The author then does not shy away from outlining a universal theory of communication in which gesture is a necessary constituent. Readers interested in learning from this book without being fascinated by the myriads of data it displays should first peruse this conclusion which spells out the assumptions and agenda of the whole inquiry.

Calbris’s contribution to the field of gesture studies is among the very best to date without being a definitive one. The questions it raises are defining ones. But a lingering issue raised by this book is bound to be whether a research on gesture in a given language and culture is at all translatable, let alone generalizable. Comparative research in gesture is still to be developed. Only this could lead to a compelling theory.