C103 - The Semiotics of Advertising
Week 10 Lecture Notes
Monday 10/27/2025

Business & Organizational Matters

• Any questions or problems anybody wants to bring up?
• Before we get started, let me share a really amusing ad that was released this week. Most of you have probably heard of the heist that took place just a little more than a week ago at the Louvre, the famous art museum in Paris (the place that exhibits the Mona Lisa, probably the world's most famous painting, and a work of art we will return to later in this course). Thieves broke in through a second story window and took some really famous and valuable jewelry, and then escaped on motor scooters. The whole burglary took only seven minutes, and all kinds of alarms were going off, but they escaped before anybody responded to them. They used lifting equipment to get up to the window they broke in through. The German company Blöcker, which manufactured the equipment they used, put out an ad just a few days later to capitalize on the use of their equipment! I've got to say, that's an amazingly quick job of taking advantage of a situation that combines inherent cinematic thrills with a kind of absurd humor.
• I read a couple of the first Bundle 1 assignments to be submitted, and I scrolled through a few more. Pedram has started grading but is not through the week's assignments. The general plan is for him to get through them by Wednesday if possible (he's writing his dissertation and things may come up to interfere with that planned schedule). But if he can get through them by Wednesday or so, you might have a look before you submit the next week's assignments, in case there are comments that help you (especially with regard to the amount of specific detail you discuss). Might help you on the next set of assignments.
• Anyway, here are a couple of observations I wanted to share.
• First of all, I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important it is for you to stay on top of these assignments and turn them all in. There are 420 points specified for the graded assignments in this course, spread out over the seven weeks of class. The bundle assignments are worth 20 points apiece, which means that each one is worth nearly 4% of your semester grade. Several people did not turn in any of the Week 1 assignments, which means those people have lost 60 points out of their theoretical maximum score of 540 points, and so now their highest possible score in the course is reduced to only 90%, after only the first week.
• Generally you seem to be trying to engage seriously with the questions, and the answers were pretty thoughtful. I was pleased by what I read when I looked through the initial assignments. And so far we have found only one obvious instance AI use yet, which is relatively encouraging. But we haven't graded very many submissions, so AI could still be lurking there.
• There was one rather controversial ad in Bundle 2. Only one person in the assignments I looked at approached what I think about this ad. I asked about a negative interpretation of the image, and most of you said something about mixing alcohol and sex, and/or about objectivization of women. Those responses are perfectly sensible, but I wonder if at least some of you had the same idea as I do and were just reluctant to voice it? In this class, I would encourage you to say or write what you think, political correctness and wokeness not withstanding. I'm not asking you to try to be outrageous, but don't hesitate to say anything you really think.
  • Regrettably, once you have bought the idea of beer bottle as recurring phallic symbol, it can lead to some REALLY undesirable thoughts. Consider this ad for Molson beer.
• In Bundle 3, Q1 some of you wrote about the way the first "p" sound in the spoken word "pop" creates an explosive release of air, thus recapitulating the sound that the word denotes. That's exactly correct and it's good to make that explicit. Note also that the second "p" puts an abrupt stop to the sound, thus rounding out the effect of onomatopoeia. In this way "pop" is a better example of the phenomenon than many other words that also qualify as onomatopoeia, such as boom or buzz. In the case of boom, the initial consonant b has the same explosive effect as p in pop, but it lacks that closure. Maybe the off-glide in the sound of the word corresponds to the lingering noise of a "boom"-type explosion.  In the case of buzz, the last consonant approximates the buzzing sound of bees, doorbells, alarms, whatever, but the beginning adds nothing to help the effect. They all qualify as onomatopoeia, but pop does it more completely, because the sound of the entire word seems to work to reinforce the meaning.
• I want you to answer the exact question asked as fully as called for, even if you think something is "obvious". Don't just say the message is "obvious" and leave it at that. In many cases, it will help your answer to explain what specific thing (or things) triggers a particular reaction, rather than just summarizing what your reaction is. And don't add a bunch of irrelevant stuff, which just makes it harder to grade your work and distracts us from the good things you have said when I grade your assignment.
• We will be trying to give you some meaningful feedback, and even if you got a 20/20 on an assignment, you should still make a practice of looking to see what I have said in any comments. We might not dock you any points if your answer is borderline satisfactory, but being aware of what we find borderline may help you avoid losing points on some future assignment. I also want to remind you that I will have online office hours available from 5-6 on Wednesdays for any questions you might have about the grading of past assignments or your understanding of the current assignments. I don't just hang out online, waiting for someone to appear; but this is the best time to arrange to see me if you want to. Just drop me a line by email to say, I'd like to talk with you around 5:30 (or whatever) and I'll be there. You can also make an appointment for a zoom meeting at other times if you are busy during my office hour.
• So far we've only seen one set of week 9 assignments that were clearly done by an AI system. That person got a 0 on each of the first three assignments, so they are in exactly the same situation as if they hadn't done the assignments at all. AI didn't do a bad job on most of that assignment, but it wasn't great either. Using AI for work in this class, which is a long way from say Finite Math or Organic Chemistry at IU, feels really pointless to me, in addition to being dishonest. I am reminded of Shel Silverstein's homework machine.
• Finally, let me just remind you that if you wait until the evening assignments are due on Friday nights, you don't leave yourself much time to recover from any technical problems (your internet connection goes down, you can't get a link to work) or to figure out anything that you don't understand. I know it is tiresome to hear this over and over, but if you do the work a little earlier and have a problem, you have a better chance of fixing it or figuring out what you don't quite understand. Also please note that if you submit an assignment on Canvas, but it sticks in your mind and you regret something you said or want to add to your answer, the assignments in Canvas are set so that you can upload a replacement answer and replace the original one. Bear that in mind and take advantage of it if you want to. We won't start grading each week's bundles until after their due date.
• Finally, I try hard to make sure the links in the bundle assignments all work. But I am human and perfectly capable of making a mistake, overlooking something, etc. If you are looking at a bundle and something doesn't work for you, PLEASE email me (gfowler@iu.edu) to let me know and I will try to fix the problem as quickly as possible. I am usually sitting on my email all the time. Think of this as a courtesy to your fellow students, so they don't encounter the same frustration as you just did.

For next Monday's lecture

• Please read Chapter 3 of Chandler, which is devoted to syntagmatics and paradigmatics. I am not assigning you to read Chapter 2, although I will incorporate a little bit of that material into today's lecture and two of this week's asynchronous assignments.

For the rest of this week

• We have three bundles of asynchronous work and assignments for the week
• The regular weekly due date for the assignments for this week is Friday 10/31 at 11:59 pm. That's Halloween, but if you want to keep that evening free, get the assignments done ahead of time. Entirely up to you.
  • Bundle 4
  • Bundle 5
  • Bundle 6

Models of the sign

• We will concentrate on two possible models of the sign today:
• Ferdinand de Saussure's two-part model (very simple)
• Charles Peirce's three-part model (a bit more sophisticated)
• And then we will consider the possible relations between the components of the sign
• The asynchronous work has mainly to do with analyzing some signs and other material in terms of these models and our discussion of the relations between components.
• At the end of the lecture I will touch on the relation between signs and realities, which is the topic of Chapter 2 of Chandler. I didn't assign that chapter in this version of this course, but I do want to pass along a few ideas, and Bundle 7 has to do with that material.

Saussure's two-part model of the sign

• Saussure's model of the sign has two components
  • "Signifier" (form)
  • "Signified" (meaning)
  • These connect together to form what Saussure called "the sign".
• The connection between the two may be natural or completely arbitrary (no necessary connection)
  • When I do this as a regular in-person course I discuss how slippery the idea of a natural connection between signifier and signified is
  • Some of the material in asynchronous Bundle 3 from last week was aimed at bringing out that idea
  • For example, I asked you about the word pop as an example of onomatopoeia. There are plenty of other words that count as onomatopoeia, such as buzz or boom.
  • But pop is different than buzz. Would anybody care to explain to us how these two examples are different?
  • Or consider counting in American Sign Language (here's a primer on 1-10)
• Restroom signs make a similar point.
  • Yes, there can be a natural component, but it is not gender per se in a standard gender-based set of restroom signs which carries the bulk of the meaning, but a contrast between the signs, driven perhaps by a secondary attribute which is not actually gender itself, but something associated with gender, such as wearing a dress or skirt. But how many of the women in this class are actually wearing that kind of clothing this evening? Not very many, I bet.
    

Model 2: Charles Peirce

• A note on pronouncing his name (and what a weird guy he was)
• Sign has three components:
  • Representamen (sign vehicle) = Saussure's signifier
  • Interpretant (sense) = the meaning we get from the sign
  • Object (referent) = the actual object referred to, or a prototype of that object
    • Hence, the referent may be either concrete/specific or generic/abstract
  • Notion of a prototype is again important
    • The idea of interpretant implies there is an interpreter as well, the person who perceives the sign
      • This is the essence of semiosis: the process of interpreting the sign

      

       

  • Both of these models can get to the same place, but the route there may be different.
    • Consider this ad based around a picture of a chicken
    • How does this work in Peirce's model?
    • Now, how can Saussure provide for this? Here's Chandler's diagram
  • Note that the exact value of the interpretant depends upon contextual and/or subjective factors. Consider these two pictures of a chicken
• Three modes of relationship between Signifier/Signified or Representamen/Interpretant
• • 	Symbol/symbolic: a mode in which the signifier does not resemble the signified but which is fundamentally arbitrary or purely conventional - so that the relationship must be learnt: e.g. language in general (plus specific languages, alphabetical letters, punctuation marks, words, phrases and sentences), numbers, morse code, traffic lights, national flags;
    	Icon/iconic: a mode in which the signifier is perceived as resembling or imitating the signified (recognizably looking, sounding, feeling, tasting or smelling like it) - being similar in possessing some of its qualities: e.g. a portrait, a cartoon, a scale-model, onomatopoeia, metaphors, 'realistic' sounds in 'programme music', sound effects in radio drama, a dubbed film soundtrack, imitative gestures;
    	Index/indexical: a mode in which the signifier is not arbitrary but is directly connected in some way (physically or causally) to the signified - this link can be observed or inferred: e.g. 'natural signs' (smoke, thunder, footprints, echoes, non-synthetic odours and flavours), medical symptoms (pain, a rash, pulse-rate), measuring instruments (weathercock, thermometer, clock, spirit-level), 'signals' (a knock on a door, a phone ringing), pointers (a pointing 'index' finger, a directional signpost), recordings (a photograph, a film, video or television shot, an audio-recorded voice), personal 'trademarks' (handwriting, catchphrase) and indexical words ('that', 'this', 'here', 'there').

• Crucial points:.
  • These are simply ways of categorizing, or talking about, signs
  • They are not absolutes (X may be "more indexical" than Y)
  • They are not mutually exclusive (a sign may be both iconic and indexical at the same time)
  • They are not static with time; our systems of signs evolve.
    • So, the use of red color for expressing ideas like "danger, warning" is initially symbolic (arbitrary), but eventually as its use spreads and becomes more and more familiar, it tends toward the indexical, red may signify warning even outside any recognizable context.
  • Iconic images do not have to be identical to the original
    • Consider two photographic images of the film director Alfred Hitchcock
    • Now consider an additional caricature of the same man
    • This is also iconic, but it is less detailed, less precise, due to the genre of the portrait
    • Secondarily, you could argue that it contains indexical elements, simply suggesting certain attributes of his physiognomy (the ski-jump-shaped nose, the rounded jowls, etc.)
  • The standard female restroom sign can be regarded as indexical

Signs and Realities (Chapter 2 of Chandler, 69-95; this was not assigned to read)

• This is the shortest and the least interesting chapter in the book. I have less to say about this one than others. The remaining chapters in the book are much better!
• As a result, the asynchronous material is rather light, with less to write.
• Chandler points out that (for a semiotician) reality always involves representations (= signs)
  • I'd say, we need to distinguish between "direct" reality and perceived/interpreted/remembered/indirect reality
  • If we see an event ourselves, we have a direct perception of reality, unmediated by any representations
  • If we see it later on video, then there are a variety of mediating factors
• The problem is the same one we face all the time: do we trust the evidence of our senses?
  • A familiar case where our senses can mislead us is a spoon in a glass.
  • Here's a jokey photograph making the same point.   
  • We learn to process sensory input and interpret it, so our perception depends as much upon what we process as what underlies the perception.
    • Odor perception depends upon the shape of complex molecules.
    • One cup of sweetened coffee may be cloying to one person but satisfying to another.
    • There's an important psychological effect called "premature cognitive commitment", where an individual becomes so conditioned to an idea about reality that he/she doesn't ever question it, even if circumstances change so that it isn't valid any more
      • Fish in an aquarium
      • Changing (or unchanging) relations between parents and their now-adult children
• Extreme positions
  • Radical realism: there is an objective reality, and language/signs correspond to that reality
  • Radical idealism: there is no objective reality, only representations of reality
  • Intermediate (constructivist) position: there is reality, but our perception of it is usually indirect, via representations
• What's driving this is the difference between the two competing models of the sign.
  • Saussure's sign: a psychologically real signifier (sound or visual representation) and a psychologically real signified (mental representation of the meaning of the sign)
  • Peirce's sign adds a third dimension: the referent (or object) , which (at least in some cases) is an objectively real object in the real world
• Words themselves are not palpable objects; they are (possibly) linked to palpable objects, but they are not interchangeable.
• What's the result of all of this? Here's my resolution:
  • If nothing is real, then life has no point, no value.
  • If we take this seriously, then it doesn't matter what we do.
  • However, we are living our lives, we may as well make the best of them.
  • Therefore we may as well act as though reality exists, and assume that things are real until and unless we find out otherwise.
• If we return to the extreme positions vis-a-vis reality cited above:
  • Radical realism: there is an objective reality, and language/signs correspond to that reality
  • Radical idealism: there is no objective reality that we can perceive directly, only representations of reality which may distort it in various ways
  • Intermediate position: there is reality, but our perception of it is very often indirect, via representations
    • So my practical take on this for would-be semioticians is: be alert to cases when reality is colored by representation
• "Modality" refers to the reality status of a sign.
  • In order to perceive a text, we have to interact with it, and we assign varying degrees of (assumed/perceived) reality to it along the way.
  • This is heavily influenced by genre.
    • Written texts have a low reality coefficient.
      • There will be an example in next week's Bundle 7 asynchronous material of the difference in perceived reality between written and video texts
      • But graphic genres may be more or less realistic as well.
        • This one definitely transcends reality, although it is presented with a straight face (as if realistic)
        • Here's one that looks extremely realistic. But is it really?
        • Here's a Benetton ad that challenges some of our preconceptions about reality.
  • Chandler provides a typology of modality cues, characteristics of graphic reproductions that tend to increase or decrease a picture's reality coefficient.
    

Formal features	Content features
3D -- flat detailed -- abstract color -- monochrome edited -- unedited moving -- still audible -- silent	possible -- impossible plausible -- implausible familiar -- unfamiliar current -- distant in time local -- distant in space

• Note that features may push our perceptions in different directions even for one and the same representation
  • Consider a painted portrait and a sculpture
  • The portrait is in color, which enhances its perceived realism, whereas the sculpture is not
  • But the sculpture is 3-dimensional, whereas the portrait is not
• Non-realistic representations can still have a considerable degree of realism.
  • One example: Chandler's point about a drawing of a hand.
  • Or another example, about the phantom pencil
• A key example is Rene Magritte's painting of a pipe (here's an extension based on that famous painting)
  • Aside from the obvious fact that an iconic representation of a pipe is not a pipe (you couldn't pack it with tobacco and smoke it), there is also the problem of what 'this' refers to:
    • this [pipe] is not a pipe;
    • this [image of a pipe] is not a pipe;
    • this [painting] is not a pipe;
    • this [sentence] is not a pipe;
    • [this] is not a pipe.
  • The point here is that words take on real psychological substance, and they feel real because we get so accustomed to them.
    • Chandler's example from Piaget
      • "Could the sun have been called 'moon' and the moon 'sun'?" -- "No." -- "Why not?" -- "Because the sun shines brighter than the moon..." -- "But if everyone had called the sun 'moon', and the moon 'sun', would we have known it was wrong?" -- "Yes, because the sun is always bigger, it always stays like it is and so does the moon." -- "Yes, but the sun isn't changed, only its name. Could it have been called... etc.?" -- "No... Because the moon rises in the evening, and the sun in the day."
      • We could find many such examples from everyday life
      • Amusingly, I ran across this quote recently in an op-ed piece in the NY Times. So it's not just kids who fall prey to this confusion between signifier and signified!
  • Here's a nice ad parody that plays upon Magritte's paradox