from Genette - intertexuality - paratextuality - architextuality metatextuality hypotextuality - hypertextality - this last one is Chandler's addition
Consider how marked the intertextuality is, too. 204
Presents structuralist and semiotic models of communication. Sets aside S's and information theory models as reductivist. Mentions Jakobson's model but moves past that quickly. Distinguishes between models for interpersonal and mass communication.
Various frameworks. Much of the chapter sketches in the paradigms and the syntagms in each area. But some of these encodings seem to be analogue codes 191 and so there are no one to one correspondence. Analogue codes slide around. 191.
Leaves out the concept of semiological resources. we'd get some value out of comparing this OV with Kress's model, which seems to entail communication differently.
textual determinism: that the text determines meaning - a single, immutable meaning, placing the encoder and decoder in symmetry. But decodings do not follow inevitably from encodings. 179
Positioning of the subject. Excellent brief OV of theory. Positioning of the subject is a structuralist concept that semiotics adapts to its use.
Make the distinction between interpersonal communication and mass communication
"In order to communicate, a producer of any text must make some assumptions about an attended audience; reflections [traces] of such assumptions may be discerned in the text." 180
Special case: the producer doesn't actively consider assumptions about the audience but attempts to communicate. There would seem to be some default assumptions that the producer is calling on
"while the individual is an actual person, the subject is a set of roles constructed by dominant cultural and ideological values." 180
"Understanding the meaning of a text involves taking on an appropriate ideological identity. In order to make sense of the signs in a text the reader is obliged to adopt a 'subject-position' in relation to it. ... Some theorists argue that this position already exists within the structure and codesl of the text." 180.
That is, the text constructs its ideal reader. Readers can see the assumptions about the reader encoded in the text.
There's an issue in "make sense of the signs in a text" that suggests that adopting a subject position is partially wilful - that the subject does not need to stand in that position and can actually take on multiple positions simultaneously.. Here is a ground for arguing that the analyst stands outside the communicative / rhetorical exchange as an observe. This is not an objective position but an alternative subject position.
interpellation. 181
genre. genre positions the audience. generic frameworks. 182 -3
Artificial perspective be used to illustrate how a technical innovation has semiotic affects and influences. "Artificial perspective performed the ideological function of 'positioning the subject'" 187 that was followed by photography.
Visual Perspective Q addressed, Is linear perspetive a symbolic form," 183ff eg a semiotic resource.
Argues that linear perspective is a visual code that we now read as naturalized - or that it may be a way of representing physical. But see Gibson.
Depth uses more than perspective to create verisimilitude. Color, representation of light, clarity. the development of oils has a lot to do with creating verisimilitude.
Can be read as social concern of the time: 1500s.
Implications This way of encoding the visual creates the frame. 186. Separates the viewer from the scene, creates the observing subject - the spectator, the spectacle as "an object of vision" 186. Confirms - gives visual confirmation of - self as individual, assuming a single, fixed perspective from which to view. 186.
Linear perspective prepares us for the camera 187 by making the visual representation conform to the dominant mode for framing paintings. 187. But not everyone views oil paintings and etchings.
Argues that codes of linear perspective are built into the camera, which further naturalizes them and the camera as an object - a technology - for recording.
<b>Modes of address</b> Sort of a mish mash of observations until discussing who gets to look directly into the camera - and consequently who gets to the position of direct address to the audience. 190.
Modes of address might come into play in considering selfies, blogs, tweets, sms, using mobiles in public.
Reading positions Can reify the medium and essentialize readers. But this framework does start to address questions of how readers interpret texts < important!
Interpretation Acknowledgement that semiotics can and maybe needs to look at how signs are iinterpreted in actuality. Presents on model from Morris -
- syntactic recognition of a sign - semantic comprehension of meaning of the sign - pragmatic interp of the sign as relevant
this model doesn't strike me as particularly useful or accurate.
<b>intertextuality</b> Chandler argues in defense of the intentional fallacy using impellation and intertextuality. 195-6 Intertextuality, via Kristeva, as the intersection of shared codes - between author and reader and another between texts.
I'm partial to this argument: ""while our intention to communicate and *what* we intend to communicate are both important to us as individuals meaning cannot be reduced to authorial intention... "in conforming to any of the conventions of our medium, we act as a medium for perpetrating such conventions." 196.
authorship "we do not precede language but are *produced* by it." 196. So - at least for Brthes - writing is "a matter of working with the signifiers and letting the signifieds take care of themselves." 196
And so in reading, we are rewriting the text. Readers construct authors. 197-8. This idea gives credence to naive readers who use textual shards and select evidence and stories about the author to create a subject that would likely produce the text she reads. Think of what naive readers bring to bear in constructing J K Rowling, or Jane Austin. Constructing the author is a kind of reading. It proceeds by codes, including biographical codes, historical codes, etc - not just literary codes.
intertextuality and parody: works in opart by being directed at a group of interpreters who can activate tehc orrect codes to create the connectin between the source and the intertextual other. 200. also points to the idea that texts are permeable.
<b>Texts as Network Nodes</b> Chandler mentions this only briefly. Can see texts as nodes in a network of texts. Doing so would allow us to trace the network, locate the clusters and weak links that get new information into the nodes.\
anchors and anchrage 201
relay 202
<b>degrees of intertextuality</b> This can construt the network 204.