DE FUERZAS AÉREAS

As a linguistic concept, meaning has its roots in the theory of signs and signification called Semiology or Semiotics, which was separately established by Ferdinard de Saussure in Europe and Edward Peirce in North America in the 20^th century (Fiske, 1991). Although these two semiotic traditions have their differences, they both address the question of how we use signs to create meaning and have both been influential in communication research (Jensen, 1991a; Mick et al, 2004). Because of its focus on language, my discussion of the principles of linguistic meaning draws primarily on the Saussurian tradition and the theories of meaning-in-context that have built upon it, which are generally described as a social semiotic approach to meaning (Tietze et al, 2003; Higgins, 2007). In a paper concerning the importance of the ‘linguistic turn’ in organisational research and the centrality

3 As I explained in the previous chapter the use of the term ‘decoding’, like the terms ‘message’ and audience’ is in line with interpretive audience research traditions and does not imply a linear, mechanistic view of communication

of language and meaning in understanding organisational action, Cohen, Musson and Tietze (2005) argue that a semiotic approach to meaning in organizations is able to provide the researcher and practitioner of business communication with unique insights, which are not afforded by any other current approaches:

Semiology [as an approach to meaning] provides a focus for enquiry and a theorization of meaning-making processes that more conventional approaches to business communication treat as peripheral at best, and often ignore altogether

Cohen et al. (2005: 283)

2.2.2.1 The meaning of a sign

Saussure (1974), discussed in Fiske (1991), postulated that a linguistic sign is composed of a signifier (the physical existence of a sign, for example the written form of a word in English) and a signified (a mental concept related to that form). The relationship between signified and signifier is stable but arbitrary, i.e. it relies on a community or group deciding to use the sign in a particular way to signify a particular aspect of their reality. This implies that meaning is only possible because, we in our human communities come to an agreement about what symbols or signs actually mean when we use them (Fiske, 1991). In other words meaning, and linguistic meaning in particular, is both arbitrary and cultural. This point and its implication for my research question is explored further in this section.

2.2.2.2 Denotations, connotations, myths and frames

Building on Saussure’s theories, Barthes (1968 and 1973) developed what is perhaps the most frequently applied theory in the analysis of message meaning in a social context (Mick et al 2004). Developing Saussure’s concept of signification, namely the process by which a sign relates to external reality, Barthes utilises the idea of two orders of signification: denotation and connotation. According to Barthes denotation, describes the relationship between a sign’s signifier and signified and the relationship between the sign and its referent in external reality. Barthes assumes that the denotative meaning of a sign is relatively stable. On the contrary, at the second level of signification, meaning is what happens when the sign interacts with the sign user and their context. This is connotative meaning and it is unstable, varied and socially determined (Barthes, 1973; Fiske, 1991).

Connotative meaning can relate to the individual’s experience and/or to what Barthes calls cultural myths. For Barthes a myth is a chain of related concepts, a sort of template or frame through which a culture can conceptualise and understand an aspect of the world. According to Tietze et al (2003), Barthes saw myths as collective stories or “social products, reflecting dominant and subordinate social interests” and was concerned with the ways signs “both reflect and reproduce these cultural myths” (Tietze et al, 2003:26). Although Barthes’ ideas and theories strongly influenced cultural and discourse studies, and some areas of marketing and advertising research which adopt semiotic perspectives (see for example Mick et al 2004), the

concept of myth does not seem to have been adopted widely to describe these common cultural perspectives on the world.

Alternative concepts have been proposed, instead, which capture more or less the same territory, for example, theories of cultural frames (Jensen, 1991b; Tietze et al, 2003), scripts (Schank and Abelson, 1977; Wierzbicka 2006), or schemas (Deetz and Mumby, 1985; Beamer, 1995). In broad terms these describe culturally embedded concepts or discourses which individuals draw upon when they assign meaning to given messages (Brown and Yule, 1983; Wierzbicka, 2003). According to Brown and Yule

These different terms are best considered as alternative metaphors for the description of how knowledge of the world is organised in human memory, and also how it is activated in the process of discourse understanding

Brown and Yule, (1983: 238)

Tietze et al (2003), for instance, discuss the idea of ‘cultural frames’ as a metaphor which illuminates the relationship between message meaning and cultural context.

We find this a salient metaphor for understanding the diverse packages of knowledge that we bring to our reading of a particular communicative event or text. When we encounter a new situation we use our existing frames to make sense of it. In this way the new situation is not experienced as a barrage of totally unfamiliar stimuli, but is understood

in terms of things we already know. Thus frames provide us with structures for making sense

Tietze et al, (2003:73) As I show when I discuss my data, this concept of cultural frames⁴ provides a very useful device for understanding meaning generated by message reading and the relationship between meaning and cultural context.