Courtesy of
http://www.advertolog.com/paedia/prints/2009/02/18/284562/show/In breaking the code of this print advertisement, we see that this is a print anti-smoking advertisement from Romania. It is apparent because of the written text we see at the bottom right-hand corner of the print ad – “Give up smoking” – together with the “double-A” logo that bears the word “Romania”. Besides the written text, we also see a man with a lighted cigarette in the middle of the print ad. From this, we see the interplay between the written text and the image, as they compliment/support one another in conveying a notion.
To decipher the meaning this print ad is trying to convey to its readers, we see that the print ad further reinforces its stance/message against smoking by having a written text on the bottom left-hand corner that states, “It’s called suicide because it’s your choice”. As this written text is found in this print ad, it is obvious that this written text is in relation to smoking. Thus, readers will get the idea that “choosing to smoke is suicidal”.
Note also the font style of the written texts – its typography – it is very straight and can be considered as very “standard”. This may be a way to connote the seriousness of the message this ad is trying to convey – “it is of no joke/laughing matter”.
In this case, there are 2 kinds of readers the print ad is targeting – existing smokers, and non-smokers who are considering to pick up smoking. This is interpreted based on “It’s called suicide because it’s your choice”, which can be read in two ways. One way is that the sentence is meant for existing smokers who made the choice to continue to smoke; while the sentence can also be seen as a warning to non-smokers who are thinking of smoking that they are actually making a choice to die if they choose to pick up smoking.
The suicidal notion is further enhanced by the man at the centre of the print ad, which is the most salient figure in the ad, as we see him with a lighted cigarette, and he is at a position in which it seems he is actually being hung by the cigarette. The limpness of his body also creates the impression that he is already dead. Hence, here again, we see how the image and the written text enhance each other to generate more impact in conveying an idea to the readers.
In addition, the gloomy surrounding of the print ad creates a foreboding atmosphere, thus, making the act or the idea of smoking as something which is of a serious threat to anyone who picks up smoking.
Looking at the aforementioned so far, we can safely conclude that the print ad is trying to get its readers to do something after seeing this ad – to stave off smoking.
Taking up the role as a text analyst, we see that the target readers are firstly subjected to a subordinate position, as we see the written texts on both bottom corners are generally in declaratives. The idea of declarative sentences, in this case, means that the advertiser has more knowledge over the readers as the print ad is providing knowledge/information to the readers (which the readers presumably have no idea of) – through stating that smoking is suicidal and that there is a service helpline for readers to dial should they want to quit smoking or know more about giving up smoking.
The ad also interestingly tries to place the readers as someone who is witnessing the man being hung by smoking as the position/angle of the ad creates the impression that the reader is in the room, standing right in front of this man in the ad. This, in a way, produces more impact for the readers as a sense of solidarity is established in this sense. As solidarity is established, it is deemed that the readers will be more likely to heed whatever advice the ad is giving.
It is interesting to note how only a man is placed in the picture, which brings to the thought of whether this ad is only targeting at male smokers. Or is there a sense of sexism at play here with the exclusion of a female smoker? Is a man representative of both male and female smokers? This is something that is worth a thought.
In teaching a local class of Secondary 2 students, I would form the students into mini-groups of about 4 people per group. The print ad will be provided to them and some questions would be posed to them for discussion:
1. What is this print ad about? How do you know?
2. What kind of mood does the ad convey to you? Why do you get that kind of mood?
3. How does the man at the centre of the print ad help convey the message the print ad is trying to convey? Is it effective?
4. Do you think we would know what the print ad is trying to convey if there are no words in it? Why/Why not?
5. What kind of function do the words have in this ad?
6. Will there be a change of impact the ad gives if there is no image, with only the written texts? Why/Why not?
7. What kind of functions does the image have in this ad?
8. How does lighting/colour function in this ad?9. Why is the smoker in the ad a guy?
These questions will be addressed as a class when the students are done discussing amongst themselves.
To address Question 4 & 5, students would be given another piece of the same print ad, without the written texts. This will allow the students to see how the print ad “changes” without any written text.
To address Question 6 & 7, students will be asked to write down the texts on a blank piece of A-4 size sheet, and think about whether the impact of the ad has changed, without any image on it.
In fact, for every question posed to the students, the teacher can actually them to execute it by doodling on blank sheets, so that they can see for themselves how each element in the print ad helps to enhance in the conveyance of the message intended by the ad. The teacher could also pose a question like, what difference would it make if the room in this ad is well lit & neat? Would it make a difference? Why/Why not? This is to get students to think about the reasons behind everything they see in the print ad.
How & how well do you think these concepts apply within Singaporean educational contexts?
How might these help us to think differently about language/literacy education as you understand it? What might some of the practical classroom implications be?
When we talk about the concepts Dominant Discourse and Primary & Secondary Discourse, we have to look at not only from our own point of view, but also that of the people around us. What I mean by that is that from our point of view – supposedly educated people who are currently undergraduates – we tend to think that the dominant discourse in our society is generally Standard English, Mandarin, Malay & Tamil. By thinking so, we have actually chosen to ignore what may be going on within the actual society itself. By this, I mean to say whatever is valued by the “society” may not necessarily represent the society’s values, as it may only be the values of a dominant group – which this group subjects the values to the subordinate groups – pretty much the act of hegemony in this case.
Moving the aforesaid into something more specific – let us just say that the people at the “top tier of the social class” sees the dominant discourse as Standard English, Mandarin, Malay & Tamil in Singapore. The people who are not at the “top tier of the social class”, however, might see the colloquial version of the aforesaid four languages as the dominant discourse. There are, in fact, a number of articles on the Straits Times (Singapore Official English Newspapers) which state that Singlish should not be seen as a language that is ungrammatical and be frowned upon. On another occasion, a returning-teacher actually told me how one of her students in her form class naturally speaks Standard English, but was deemed as being pompous & was thus ostracised by the rest of the class. The abovementioned, hence, show us how subjective dominant discourse is, as it might vary on different contexts, occasions & groups of people. Will it be deemed as natural & desirable if one were to speak in Standard English, Mandarin, Malay or Tamil when conversing with stall owners in a wet market, or, hawkers in a hawker food centre? Is that the dominant discourse in those cases?
Bearing what is said above in mind, I think the Singapore educational system is trying to socialise students into what the dominant group deems as dominant discourse in the society, while disregarding whatever is considered as dominant discourse to the students themselves. This, to me, seems to be an undesirable act as the teachers are generally telling the students that what they possess currently is flawed & deemed deficient, which is in line with the language-deficit hypothesis according to Basil Bernstein, & that these students ought to learn what is considered acceptable by the society instead.
In this case, I think teachers should adopt William Labov’s theory of language-difference hypothesis, in which it states that languages are seen as different, & that no language is to be seen as being inferior to another. As such, as teachers, we should inform the students regarding how the different varieties of a language are considered apt to be used in different occasions & contexts. In this way, we are telling students that there are actually more than one dominant discourse; and they vary in different contexts & situations. Thus, students can see that in school, the teachers are only teaching them one of the dominant discourses, the Standard English, so that they can use it whenever the occasion calls for it. With that, students who do not already possess the ability to speak Standard English will not be made to feel that they are suffering from deficiency as compared to others who have been speaking Standard English at home.
Thus, the concept of hybridity is very important. Teachers can incorporate the kinds of language the students already acquired at home to teach them what is needed to be taught – in our case, Standard English language. While doing so, the teachers are also roping in the students’ home cultures & backgrounds. This forms a sense of familiarity to the students while learning Standard English, & they will be able to feel motivated to learn whatever is taught to them without feeling insecure.
We see from the picture above that it has two modes, namely language & image. In terms of the image mode, it actually encompasses different elements which include colour, typography and positioning; while the language mode pretty much refers to the words used.
In the image mode, first, we see 6 different characters bordering along the 4 sides of the whole picture. It is quite apparent that the first 3 characters at the top half of the whole picture are used in line with the first half of the phrase, “Take your job seriously”, as we see an angry-looking chef, a document-tearing man, and a man hammering the keyboard of a computer. All of them can be said to look a tad too serious.
Then, we see the change in mood based on the characters at the bottom-half, as we see a goofy-looking clown, a man jumping for joy, and a clown-looking person laughing with one of his/her hands stretched out. These characters are seen to be in line with the second half of the phrase, “don’t take yourself seriously”.
Note how the “serious” and “goofy” elements take half of the page each – top-half & bottom-half respectively. Although there is no distinct framing, the segregation is marked by the word, “but”, the characters in the whole picture, as well as the amount of space given to “Take your job seriously” and “don’t take yourself seriously”, which is very much half of each page. In this case, we see framing at work (subtly, but apparently) as well as the significance of the spatial aspect and positioning because of the equal amount of space attributed to the “serious” and “goofy” aspects, thus conveying what the whole picture is trying to get across to the viewers – “relax & enjoy yourself while taking your job seriously, & that none of them should be compromised for another.”
Note also how the letters of the words at the top-half are neatly lined up as compared to those at the bottom-half, which are generally “jumpy-looking” – which is very much linked to the motion of the typography – once again, to connote a sense of “seriousness” at the top & “fun-ness” at the bottom.
We also see the colour red filling up the phrase at the top-half, which, in this case, connotes anger and danger; while a variation of colours that fill the bottom-half seem to suggest a sense of “cheeriness”. The cheeriness is also depicted through the use of a shade of yellow as a background colour. The gradual change of shade from a paler yellow (at the top-half) to yellow (at the bottom-half) also further portrays the serious mode at the top-half to the cheeriness at the bottom-half.
On another note, the text is to be read in a sequential manner, for it will not make any sense if read other wise.
Having said that, we see that the images compliment the linguistic aspects (the text) in helping to convey what the whole picture intended to communicate to its viewers. Without, the images, the whole message may not hold as much impact. Without the text (the full sentence), no one will understand what the whole picture is trying to convey if viewers are to look at the images only. Hence, texts and images can be said to be interdependent of each other.
Our tutorial group did a concept map today & I must say that had really helped me understand what I have been exposed to for the past 4 weeks, for we were all forced to make sense of the words given to us & link them to one another.
The informal presentations by every mini-group of the concept map certainly made me learn even more, as I began to realise things which I did not notice beforehand. Now, at least I am sure of the followings, which I was unsure of previously:
Semiotic work refers to the process of meaning-making.
Synchronic Description refers to making meaning of a particular item there & now – pretty much based on the interpreter’s current context.
Diachronic Description refers to making meaning based on historical contexts – how meanings of a particular item have evolved.
Semiotic Innovation – new creations of meaning(s) of a particular item.
Semiotic Import – meanings that are adapted from other cultures, individuals, etc.
At the same time, I also found out from another group’s presentation that many of the concepts actually work two ways. Take interpreting an image for example – we apply semiotic importation when interpreting some small aspects of an image, & as we combine these interpretations together & apply them on the image as a whole, we actually engage in knowledge-transforming, and thus, a new form of knowledge is formed. This is a theory associated with Flower & Hayes, who are into the study of human’s cognitivism.
I somehow think that we may actually be transforming knowledge in our everyday lives, if not, most days, but we just aren’t aware of it. One such instance is of the act of using a book to fan oneself in a warm weather already shows how a book, meant for reading, is being used for fanning to generate wind for the person using it. This is viewed as knowledge-transforming because we see the interaction between the human’s hand and the book that produces something else, fanning in this case, which is the product of the interaction.
Hence, all we have to do is to open up our senses and be more observant of the things around us, & try to “make strange” some of the things we do that are deemed normal, & we will actually see that many things are in fact more than what we see them as on the surface.
I was reading Bee Bee’s blog entry on the metaphors she had come up with for Literacy, & something triggered me to think of Literacy as the followings:
Literacy as Empowerment
I think when one is literate, one is able to see many things & issues in a wider way. By this, I mean that one may be more able to see certain things in more than one perspective, for one is most probably exposed to more knowledge as compared to another who is not as literate. Having said that, I was just thinking about some people who are considered literate in terms of educational qualification, but are still unable to see things in different perspectives; whereas there are some people who are not as educationally-qualified but are able to envision things in different perspectives.
The aforesaid seems very contradictory to the heading, Literacy as Empowerment, as we see educationally-qualified people are unable to see things in different perspectives as compared to others who are not as qualified as them. So, being literate, in this case, can be said to encompass more than just educational qualification, for it is probably just but one of several other criterions to determine if a person is literate or not. When one can see something in more ways than one, this person is more likely to be considered literate as compared to someone who manages to see something in only one way, even though the latter is more educationally-qualified.
Thus, in this sense, Literacy empowers one. One is able to be in control of oneself as well as the situations or people s/he faces.
Literacy as Subjugation
This is on the other end of the spectrum when comparing it with the metaphor above. In this case, Literacy is purely deemed as being literate in things that are taught to a person through the education system. The education system, to me, seems like an institution that is set up by the government to socialise people into the norms of the society. Thus, if a person just learns all the things that the education system has provided for him/her, s/he is pretty much a product the society has ‘manufactured’. This person is therefore pretty much subjugated to his/her social position which the society has placed, him/her. This is also known as hegemony, as devised by Antonio Gramsci.
With that, the person who is ‘literate’, in this case, would be helping the society to perpetuate all the norms which the society is inculcating.
Looking at the two metaphors, I would say the 1st metaphor is probably seen as undesirable, the the 2nd one as desirable to any government, as they certainly wouldn’t want people of their own country to go against everything that they are inculcating as norms.
In the case of an individual, I would say the vice-versa would be more desirable as one would get to see how people in a society is being made to see norms in their own society as the most natural things, as if created by God.Read mor about Hegemony: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony
