Talk:Semiotic literary criticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Semiotic literary criticism is part of WikiProject Literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
Semiotic interpretation does not consist of the traditional methods described here (looking for symbolism, metaphor, and allegory). In fact, one key tenet of semiotics is that signs do not have meaning in a vacuum -- they acquire their meaning from membership in structures of signs. Thus, for instance, a semiotician will look for binary oppositions in the text -- pairs of signs which are placed in opposition to one another: in a story, for instance, one might find images of "fire" counterposed to "water" images, and a contrast drawn between the male and female characters. Often a number of oppositions will be aligned with one another in the text, so that, say, men are identified with fire (in the story, a man's face is described as "fiery") and women with water (a woman who has been crying has "watery eyes"). Notice that these instances of fire/water and men/women are paired with contrasting emotions as well: anger versus sadness. A structure of binary oppositions in the story looks like this, then:
man/woman
anger/sadness
fire/water
This structure seems to imply that anger is a masculine emotion, and that sadness is feminine, and that the difference between masculine and feminine emotional responses is as natural as the difference between fire and water. In other words, a layer of meaning (a "subtext" underlying the text's surface -- in this case, a subtext about gender relations) is implicit in the way the story makes structures out of groups of signs, not just the presence of individual "symbols" with conventionally-preassigned meanings.
