- Wider scope than other modes of analysis because it studies the life
of all signs within a society.
- Provides a potentially unifying conceptual framework and a set of
methods and terms for use across the full range of practices, which
include gesture, posture, dress, writing, speech, photography, film,
television and radio.
- Explicitely concerned with the "movement of meaning within the text
and between text and the outside world".
- Look beyond the manifest content of texts.
- Help to make us aware of what we take for granted in representing
the world, reminding us that we are always dealing with signs, not with
an unmediated objective reality, and that sign systems are involved
in the construction of meaning
- Can show ideology at work and demonstrate that 'reality' can be challenged.
|
- Heavily dependent upon the skill of the individual analyst. Less skilful
practitioners 'can do little more than state the obvious in a complex
and often pretentious manner' (Leiss et al. 1990, 214)
- Because it stresses individual readings of messages, it does not lend
itself to quantification of results - it is impossible to base an overall
sense of constucted meanings on the examination of a large number of
messages.
- Cannot be applied with equal success to all kinds of ads. The danger
exists of choosing self-confirming examples to illustrate the point.
In other words, semioticians choose examples which illustrate the points
they wish to make rather than applying semiotic analysis to an extensive
random sample.
- Signs in various media are not alike - different types may need to
be studied in different ways.
- Does not address processes of production, audience interpretation
or even authorial intentions. It ignores particular practices, institutional
frameworks and the cultural, social, economic and political context.
- Brings out own subjective experiences and views of the world, not
neccessarily supported by historical, political etc. research and evidences.
|