Context-based analysis of an advertising poster

Sarvenaz Safavi; Agah Gümüş

doi:10.1515/sem-2017-0096

Article

Context-based analysis of an advertising poster

Sarvenaz Safavi and Agah Gümüş

Published/Copyright: May 22, 2019

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Semiotica Volume 2019 Issue 229

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new perspective of analyzing advertising designs from a new semiotic approach based on a new definition of the context. In order to achieve this goal, we will first of all give a definition for advertising design, and then Peirce’s idea about signs and definition of the science called semiotics will be necessary for starting the discussion. This research is based on three levels of context and shows that understanding an advertising design is not absolute but somehow relative because of differences in the background knowledge of the receivers. The conclusion of this research is that people understand advertising design based on their three contexts, which means seeing a so-called Context A, or better, what is designed, the receiver of the message will use a so-called Context B, or the context of situation, and also receives a so-called Context C, or the background knowledge in order to interpret what is selected and combined in Context A.

Keywords: semiotics; context; advertising design; human perception

References

Beasley, Ron & Marcel Danesi. 2002. Persuasive signs: The semiotics of advertising. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110888003Search in Google Scholar

Benveniste, Emile. 1985 [1969]. The semiology of language. In R. Innis (ed.), Semiotics: An introductory anthology, 228–246. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Berger, Arthur Asa. 2005. Media analysis techniques. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar

Carreiras, Manuel, Alan Garnham, Jane Oakhill & Kate Cain. 1996. The use of stereotypical gender information in constructing a mental model: Evidence from English and Spanish. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49. 639–663.10.1080/713755647Search in Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn. 2007. How many pragmatic systems are there? In M.-J. Frapolli (ed.), Saying, meaning, referring: Essays on the philosophy of Francois Recanati, 18–48. London: Palgrave.Search in Google Scholar

Chandler, Daniel. 2007. Semiotics: The basics. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203014936Search in Google Scholar

Danesi, Marcel. 2004. Messages, signs, and meanings: A basic textbook in semiotics and communication theory. 3rd edn. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.Search in Google Scholar

Dijk, Van, Teun Adrianus & Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

El-daly, Hosney M. 2011. Towards an understanding of the discourse of advertising: Review of research with special reference to the Egyptian media. African Nebula 3. 25–47.Search in Google Scholar

Fiske, John & John Hartley. 1978. Reading television. London: Methuen.10.4324/9780203356623_chapter_1Search in Google Scholar

Gauker, Christopher. 2008. Zero tolerance for pragmatics. Synthese 165. 359–371.10.1007/s11229-007-9189-2Search in Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1963. Parts and wholes in language. In Daniel Lerner (ed.), Parts and wholes, 157–162. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Search in Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 2011 [1968]. Language in relation to other communication systems. In Selected writings,Vol. 2,Word and Language, 697–711. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 2011 [1970]. Linguistics in relation to other sciences. In Selected writings,Vol. 2,Word and Language, 655–697. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman & Morris Halle. 2002 [1956]. Fundamentals of language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110894264Search in Google Scholar

Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1972. Structural anthropology, Claire Jacobson & Brooke Grundfest Schoepf (trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

Madonna, Gauding. 2001. The signs and symbols bible: The definitive guide to mysterious markings. New York, NY: Sterling.Search in Google Scholar

Morris, Charles. 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols. C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.].Search in Google Scholar

Recanati, François. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615382Search in Google Scholar

Safavi, Koorosh. 2015. An introduction to the semiotic of literature. Tehran: Elmi.Search in Google Scholar

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1983. Course in general linguistics, Roy Harris (trans.). London: Duckworth.Search in Google Scholar

Verschueren, Jef. 1987. Pragmatics as a theory of linguistic adaptation. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Yingxu. 2007. On the cognitive processes of human perception with emotions, motivation, and attitudes. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence 1(4). 1–13.10.4018/jcini.2007100101Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2019-05-22

Published in Print: 2019-07-26

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0096

Keywords for this article

semiotics; context; advertising design; human perception