The Communication Theory | Reader Edited by PAUL COBLEY R London and New YorkContents wledgements Paul Cobley 4 Emile Benveniste 5 VN. Volodinoy 6 Part Il MEANING’ LINGUISTIC LINGUISTIC “MEANING Ferdinand de Saussure 4D SUthat precede them. Barthes largely overlooks the 8 of meaning (allrough ne neve i this direst on w ine ‘objee's) anc Eco resets hs analyss to visuel components wrich Ie. ie a sores, not yet acded ino messsaes. It might be argued, ther, nat we can 's with the idee cf asua racresentstion we avcic ive power ag anelocon ard cansider the sombirations pute it win meeneg curther reusing Harand 193 cp. 3-12; Hartley “938 pp. 20-97 J. Palmer 4690 ap. 51-69; Star of el. 1992 9p. 26-68, Metz 1374; Eco 1986; Hodge 41088; Keess and van Leeuwen “992b: Kress 1994 pp 194-207 9 Roland Barthes Denotation and coimnotation STAGGERED SYSTEMS be remembered that any sysiem of i ‘plane of expression (E) and a plare of content significat on coincides &) of the two planes: ERC 1m ERC becomes in its sam a ‘or staggered. Bi ays dopendent u the peint of insertion of th tor into the second, and there ‘opposite sets. se (ERC) becores 1 fore it can resut int In the first case sion, or signifier, 2 lane of expres or vise: ( XC. This is the case which Hielmslev semiztcs; the first system is then tre plane of system iwider then the first) the plane of tatedsecond (0 aps” the denote you Lke, 6 fragment of ideo h refers, for nti 2 signif ed ‘Litera tare, knowled, of docbe systens METALANGUAGE Metalenguage In connotative he 'e second system are constituted by is reversee in metalanguage: been systerwtical y stadied there the sign ‘d by the de the notion of mesa anguage jev's Prelegn ot the signs of she first. Hjelmslev Be explicit in the contradico-y (coherent), exhaustive ans simple, scientitic 5 B or metalanguege, is an operaton, whereas conrotacive semiotics is stem, comprises not. It's evident that semiology, for instance, is a matalanguage, 5 tenutes the former to the as a second-order system it takes cver a first language iese three eements which kjct) which is the system un rough the metalang: language must not 2e confined to sc language, ir takes over a system of signifying objects, ot becom: an ‘op: that 's, a metalanguege. This is ¢he case, ~ or irstance. with the fashion magazine whic’ ‘specks fica tions of garmen:s, just 25 07 4 guage; this, howeve’ j " only ideally speaking, for magazines do no: usuclly exhibita purcly deroied ciscourse, 50 that evental 7 ology. Connotaton, being ise! jers, s gaifieds, and the procass whi (signification|, and itis the inventory: of fore should undertake of connozazion; in ocher not necessarily have ze as those of the deroved system: fagments of the dencted discocrse con corstitute a snz las ‘we ceal here with a complexa ye second: Bet which renews 3 Con: sr moore $6 idesiony 2 Denotation | Wetclanguane | sa | 1 Ral System s 84 Figure 92 CONNOTATION AND METALANGUAGE Nothing i tum the a ciple provents a metala bie: of © new met 1; this would, fer ith semiclogy if #t were to be ‘spoken’ by hen appear as a new metalanguage which rected towards the reality-object which s s'; the history of the sociel sciences. 4 languages, ard each while being, at the roct of these descrirt would thus be, in a sense, a diachrony of mi science, inchucing cf course semiology, would contain the sezds of its own ceath, in the shape of the language destined to speak it This relativiy, which és an inherent 2ert of the genoral system o! metalanguages, ellows us to qualty first form, of @ semiologist over the whole of @ semiological analysis usu: Scucied system and the (Cencted? a system 0° cor hh is epplied to it. We connotation, specks the semio.ogist spaaks its sign