Vimarsh

"Semiotics, I will contend, is not about what something means; it is about how it means." - Göran Sonesson The above statement comes from semiotician Göran Sonesson (in his 2003 work, and frequently quoted in discussions of visual and cultural analysis, such as studies of Che Guevara's image). It captures a crucial shift in how semiotics is understood—moving away from a simplistic "dictionary" view of meaning toward a dynamic, process-oriented perspective. The common (but limited) misunderstanding People often think semiotics is basically "the study of what signs or symbols mean": Red light → "stop" Rose → "love or romance" Cross → "Christianity" Nike swoosh → "performance / just do it" This is mostly semantics — asking, "what does X refer to or stand for?" (It refers to the 'what' question). The semiotic shift: focus on "how" Sonesson (and many contemporary semioticians) ...

Language is an institutionalized form. The interpretation(s) is/are subjective in nature (and culture). -J.A.H. Khatri The above statement captures two complementary ideas from linguistics, sociolinguistics, philosophy of language, and anthropology. It highlights both the socially structured / collective character of language and the individually / culturally variable way meaning is created when people use or understand it. Let's break it down clearly: 1. "Language is an institutionalized form" This means language is not a purely individual, spontaneous, or private creation — it is a social institution , much like law, money, marriage, education systems, or religion. It is "institutionalized" because: It exists as a shared, historically developed system that is maintained and transmitted across generations by communities/societies. It comes with norms, rules, conventions , and expectations that speakers mostly follow without thin...