CODES

Codes everywhere around us

A code is a rule for converting a piece of
information (for example, a letter, word,
phrase, or gesture) into another form or
representation (one sign into another sign),
not necessarily of the same type.
The notion of code in semiotics refers to :
1. a set of shared rules of interpretation
2. a meaning-making potential
Since the meaning of a sign depends on the
code within which it is situated, codes provide
a framework within which signs make sense.
Indeed, we cannot grant something the status
of a sign if it does not function within a code.
Furthermore, if the relationship between a
signifier and its signified is relatively
arbitrary, then it is clear that interpreting
the conventional meaning of signs requires
familiarity with appropriate sets of
conventions.
Reading a text involves relating it to
relevant 'codes'. Even an indexical and
iconic sign such as a photograph involves
a translation from three dimensions into
two.
When we look at things around us in
everyday life we gain a sense of depth from
our binocular vision, by rotating our head or
by moving in relation to what we are looking
at. To get a clearer view we can adjust the
focus of our eyes. But for making sense of
depth when we look at a photograph none of
this helps. We have to decode the cues.
Semioticians argue that, although exposure over
time leads 'visual language' to seem 'natural', we
need to learn how to 'read' even visual and audio-
visual texts.

Some theorists argue that even our perception of

the everyday world around us involves codes.
there are certain universal features in human
visual perception which in semiotic terms can be
seen as constituting a perceptual code.
We owe the concept of 'figure' and 'ground'
in perception to this group of psychologists.
Confronted by a visual image, we seem to
need to separate a dominant shape (a 'figure'
with a definite contour) from what our
current concerns relegate to 'background'
(or 'ground').
An illustration of this is the famous
ambiguous figure devised by the
Danish psychologist Edgar Rubin.
Images such as this are ambiguous concerning
figure and ground. Is the figure a white vase (or
goblet, or bird-bath) on a black background or
silhouetted profiles on a white background?
Perceptual set operates in such cases and we
tend to favour one interpretation over the other
(though altering the amount of black or white
which is visible can create a bias towards one
or the other). When we have identified a figure,
the contours seem to belong to it, and it
appears to be in front of the ground.
In addition, to introducing the terms 'figure'
and 'ground', the Gestalt psychologists
outlined what seemed to be several
fundamental and universal principles
(sometimes even called 'laws') of perceptual
organization. The main ones are as follows
(some of the terms vary a little): proximity,
similarity, good continuation, closure,
smallness, surroundedness, symmetry and
pragmatism.
Now we're in this frame of mind,
interpreting the image shown above
should not be too difficult. What
tends to confuse observers initially is
that they assume that the white area
is the ground rather than the figure. If
you couldn't before, you should now
be able to discern the word 'TIE'.
Codes are not simply 'conventions' of
communication but rather procedural
systems of related conventions which
operate in certain domains. Codes
organize signs into meaningful systems
which correlate signifiers and signifieds.
Codes transcend single texts, linking them
together in an interpretative framework.
Codes are interpretive frameworks which are
used by both producers and interpreters of
texts. In creating texts we select and combine
signs in relation to the codes with which we are
familiar.
In reading texts, we interpret signs with
reference to what seem to be appropriate
codes. Usually the appropriate codes are
obvious, 'overdetermined' by all sorts of
contextual cues. Signs within texts can be
seen as embodying cues to the codes which
are appropriate for interpreting them. The
medium employed clearly influences the
choice of codes.
In understanding even the simplest texts we
draw on a repertoire of textual and social
codes. Literary texts tend to make greater
demands.
In applying a code to the text, we may find that
it undergoes revision and transformation in
the reading process; continuing to read with
this same code, we discover that it now
produces a 'different' text, which in turn
modifies the code by which we are reading it,
and so on.
Many semioticians take human language as their starting
point. The primary and most pervasive code in any society is its
dominant 'natural' language, within which (as with other
codes) there are many 'sub-codes'. A fundamental sub-division
of language into spoken and written forms.

The various kinds of codes overlap, and the semiotic analysis of

any text or practice involves considering several codes and the
relationships between them.
A range of typologies of codes can be found in the literature of
semiotics.

Here are those which are most widely mentioned in the

context of media, communication and cultural studies.
• Social codes
[In a broader sense all semiotic codes are 'social codes']
verbal language (phonological, syntactical,
lexical, prosodic and paralinguistic
subcodes);
bodily codes (bodily contact, proximity,
physical orientation, appearance, facial
expression, gaze, head nods, gestures and
posture);
commodity codes (fashions, clothing, cars);
behavioural codes (protocols, rituals, role-
playing, games).
Textual codes
[Representational codes]
aesthetic codes within the various
expressive arts (poetry, drama, painting,
sculpture, music, etc.) - including classicism,
romanticism, realism;
scientific codes, including mathematics;
genre, rhetorical and stylistic codes:
narrative (plot, character, action, dialogue,
setting, etc.), exposition, argument and so
on;
mass media codes including photographic,
televisual, filmic, radio, newspaper and
magazine codes, both technical and
conventional (including format).
Interpretative codes
[There is less agreement about these as semiotic codes]
 perceptual codes: e.g. of visual perception (Hall
1980, 132; Nichols 1981, 11ff; Eco 1982) (note that
this code does not assume intentional
communication);
ideological codes: More broadly, these include
codes for ‘encoding’ and 'decoding' texts-
dominant (or 'hegemonic'), negotiated or
oppositional (Hall 1980; Morley 1980). More
specifically, we may list the 'isms', such as
individualism, liberalism, feminism, racism,
materialism, capitalism, progressivism,
conservatism, socialism, objectivism, consumerism
and populism; (note, however, that all codes can be
seen as ideological).
These three types of codes correspond
broadly to three key kinds of knowledge
required by interpreters of a text , namely
knowledge of:
the world (social knowledge);
the medium and the genre
(textual knowledge);
the relationship between (1) and
(2) (modality judgements).
Within a culture, social differentiation is 'over-determined' by a
multitude of social codes. We communicate our social identities
through the work we do, the way we talk, the clothes we wear, our
hairstyles, our eating habits, our domestic environments and
possessions, our use of leisure time, our modes of travelling and so
on . Language use acts as one marker of social identity. In 1954,
Ross introduced a distinction between so-called 'U and Non-U' uses
of the English language. He observed that members of the British
upper class ('U') could be distinguished from other social classes
('Non-U') by their use of words such as those in the following table
(Crystal 1987, 39).
It is interesting to note that several of these refer to food and
eating. Whilst times have changed, similar distinctions still exist in
British society.
U Non-U
luncheon dinner
table-napkin serviette
vegetables greens
jam preserve
pudding sweet
sick ill
lavatory-paper toilet-paper
looking-glass mirror
writing-paper note-paper
wireless radio
One of the most fundamental kinds of textual code
relates to genre. Traditional definitions of genres tend to
be based on the notion that they constitute particular
conventions of content (such as themes or settings)
and/or form (including structure and style) which are
shared by the texts which are regarded as belonging to
them. This mode of defining a genre is deeply
problematic. For instance, genres overlap and texts often
exhibit the conventions of more than one genre. It is
seldom hard to find texts which are exceptions to any
given definition of a particular genre. Furthermore, the
structuralist concern with synchronic analysis ignores the
way in which genres are involved in a constant process of
change.
Any text uses not one code, but many.
Theorists vary in their classification of such
codes. Roland Barthes itemised five codes
employed in literary texts:

hermeneutic (narrative turning-points);

proairetic (basic narrative actions);
cultural (prior social knowledge);
semic (medium-related codes) and
symbolic (themes).
HERMENEUTIC AND PROAIRETIC CODES:
The two ways of creating suspense in narrative,
the first caused by unanswered questions, the
second by the anticipation of an action's
resolution.
The hermeneutic code refers to those plot
elements that raise questions on the part of the
reader of a text or the viewer of a film.
The proairetic code refers to mere actions—
those plot events that simply lead to yet other
actions.
Yuri Lotman argued that a poem is a 'system of
systems' - lexical, syntactical, metrical,
morphological, phonological and so on - and that the
relations between such systems generated powerful
literary effects. Each code sets up expectations which
other codes violate (Lotman, 1976).
The same signifier may play its part in several
different codes. The meaning of literary texts may
thus be 'overdetermined' by several codes. Just as
signs need to be analysed in their relation to other
signs, so codes need to be analysed in relation to
other codes.