23
INTRODUCTION
Semiotics is the study of anything that can be
taken as a sign (the Greek word s¯emeion means
‘sign’). Anything can be a sign as long as someone
or, more importantly, a group of people who are
part of the same culture or society, interprets it as
‘signifying’ something – that is, as referring to or
standing for something other than itself (see Bal
and Bryson, 1991). Does this mean that semiotics
can be used to study anything at all, and therefore
also not much in any real depth, then?
In A Theory of Semiotics, Umberto Eco (1976: 7)
states that ‘semiotics is in principle the discipline
studying everything which can be used in
order to lie. If something cannot be used to tell a
lie, conversely it cannot be used to tell the truth:
it cannot in fact be used “to tell” at all’. His statement
may simply sound like a provocation, and
indeed Eco was well known not only for his vast
intellectual production but also for his wry sense
of humour. However, Eco’s idea that there ought to
be a ‘theory of the lie’, together with a whole discipline
dedicated to its study, points to the essence
of what semiotics contributes to our understanding
of the world. Semiotics is concerned with how
meaning is made and the various ways in which
language, here broadly intended, can be used to
represent reality and therefore also to tell stories.
It is in this sense that signs can always be used
to lie as, in fact, there is nothing inherently ‘true’
about any word, picture, or sound that we may use
to communicate an idea or a fact.
A famous example that is often used in lectures
introducing students to semiotics is a 1929
painting by the Belgian surrealist painter René
Magritte that depicts a pipe in a rather realistic
manner. Below the pipe, Magritte also painted
the phrase ‘Ceci n’est pas une pipe’, or ‘This is
not a pipe’. The painting’s title is La Trahison des
Images,orTheTreacheryofImages(Figure23.1).
Much later, apparently Magritte stated, somewhat
humorously, that he would have been
lying if he had written ‘This is a pipe’ below
his picture of a pipe, as the painting was ‘just
representation’.
Magritte’s painting is a great example of how
signs are not the same as what they represent.
As Chandler (2002: 70) points out, however,
Magritte’s painting is also a reminder that ‘we
do habitually refer to such realistic depictions
in terms which suggest that they are nothing
more nor less than what they depict’. Precisely
because we systematically rely on signs to make
sense of the world around us, semiotics helps us
understand how both language and imagery, for
Visual Semiotics: Key Concepts
and New Directions
G i o r g i a A i e l l o
BK-SAGE-PAUWELS_MANNAY-190229-Chp23.indd 367 11/8/19 1:11 PM
The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods368
example, do not reflect reality but contribute to
constructing it. Meaning-making is fundamentally
about mediation.
Ultimately, semiotics is indeed both a theory
and a methodology that can be applied to
a variety of ‘texts’, including novels, paintings,
films, buildings, websites, and even clothing.
The term ‘text’ refers to any semiotic object
endowed with material or symbolic boundaries
and structural autonomy, or where different
parts all have a function in relation to a ‘whole’
and which can therefore be examined as a unit.
To answer my previous question, however, the
purpose of semiotic analysis is quite specific:
it aims to make the hidden structures, underlying
cultural codes, and dominant meanings of
such texts both visible and intelligible. In doing
so, semiotics is also a powerful instrument for
a systematic study and critique of ideology in
visual communication.
Visual semiotics should be considered not only
as a sub-field of semiotics, but also as a theoretical
and methodological perspective that has
been adopted and adapted across disciplines (for
example, art history, media and communication
studies, cultural studies, and both art and design,
to name a few). For this reason, visual semiotics
has developed in ways that transcend traditional
semiotics. A semiotic lens is also increasingly
used to examine visual texts and ‘artifacts’ other
than images like, for example, packaging, interior
design, and layouts (see Ledin and Machin, 2018).
For simplicity purposes, here we focus specifically
on still images.
This chapter1
is divided into four parts. First, I
briefly outline the main traditions, concepts, and
contributions of semiotics as a theoretical and
methodological framework. While semiotics is a
complex field with multiple schools and strands,
I focus specifically on key contributions by
Charles S. Peirce and Ferdinand de Saussure, who
are widely considered as the main founders of
semiotics’ two main lineages. I then move on to
discussing the work of Roland Barthes and JeanMarie
Floch; in different ways, their respective
bodies of work have shaped the development of
visual semiotics as we know it today.
Next, I introduce social semiotics as a leading
contemporary framework for visual analysis.
I discuss how social semiotics has refined and
further developed some of the key instruments
for visual analysis developed by Barthes and,
to a lesser extent, Floch, while also introducing
important considerations about the significance
of both context and practice for a semiotic
understanding of the visual. Finally, I offer a
practical example of how imagery can be examined
from a social semiotic standpoint through
an original analysis of a stock photograph from
the world-leading visual content provider Getty
Images. Overall, the chapter aims to offer a general
introduction to visual semiotics together
with conceptual and methodological tools for
visual analysis.
Figure 23.1  A cookie tin featuring Magritte’s La Trahison des Images painting.
(Photo: L. Pauwels)
BK-SAGE-PAUWELS_MANNAY-190229-Chp23.indd 368 11/8/19 1:11 PM
Visual Semiotics: Key Concepts and New Directions 369
THE FOUNDERS OF SEMIOTICS:
CHARLES S. PEIRCE AND FERDINAND
DE SAUSSURE
The founders of the two main semiotic traditions,
Charles S. Peirce and Ferdinand de Saussure,
developed their ‘theories of the sign’ in parallel,
though independently, at the end of the nineteenth
century. Peirce and Saussure’s semiotic theories
diverged greatly, and in fact initiated two distinct
lineages – now known as American and French
semiotics, respectively.
Peirce’s main focus was on the relationship
between a sign and its object, or ‘referent’ – for
example, between a portrait and the person it represents
(Nöth, 1990). He identified three main
types of signs, characterized by three different
modes of relationship to their object, or referent
(Peirce, 1931–1958). An icon is a sign that bears
similarity or resemblance to its object. A photograph
is an icon in that it looks like its subject, and
so are maps, visual signs that identify ladies’ and
gentlemen’s restrooms, and in verbal language
also onomatopoeia (Fiske, 1990).2
An index is a
sign that has a direct relationship to its object, in
terms of physical or causal contiguity. For example,
footprints and photographs are both indexical
in that they are both physical traces left by feet
and light, whereas signals such as a phone ringing
or pointers such as a directional signpost literally
direct our attention to their objects. A symbol is
a sign that is not directly connected or similar to
its object but is purely conventional. Symbols are
connected to their objects by virtue of agreement,
codes, rules, or what Peirce defines as ‘habitual
connection’. Words, numbers, traffic lights, and
specific languages such as Morse code are symbols,
in that their relationship to an object must
be learned (Chandler, 2002). Peirce’s typology of
signs, then, can be seen as a continuum ranging
from most motivated to most conventional.
Based on this model, we can also begin to
understand photographic representation as especially
powerful, as photographs are often simultaneously
iconic, indexical, and symbolic. For
example, the power of press photographs lies
in their being a record of an event that has actually
taken place while also resembling particular
people and places. Furthermore, they often evoke
abstract meanings related to broader cultural values
and social norms (see Lomax and Fink, 2020,
this volume). Even in the age of digital retouching
and computer-­generated imagery, we still tend to
see the photographic image as especially truthful
and meaningful at the same time. Overall, Peirce’s
typology of signs has been key to a broader understanding
of the interaction between perception
and culture (see also Gualberto and Kress, 2020,
this volume).
Unlike Peirce, Saussure was ‘concerned primarily
with the relationship of signifier to signified
and with one sign to others’ (Fiske, 1990: 51).
In other words, Saussure’s conception of meaning
was structural and relational, whereas Peirce’s
was primarily referential. Saussure’s sémiologie
brought social life into the semiotic equation. He
claimed that a linguistic sign is the result of an
arbitrary connection between its signifier and its
signified, or its material form and the mental concept
associated with it (Saussure, 1983 [1916]).
Moreover, signifiers and signifieds can only be
separated for analytical purposes, but when it
comes to the reality of signification, they are in
fact heavily dependent on one another, with the
sign being their totality and the fundamental unit
of the meaning-making process.
Unlike the Peircean sign, the Saussurean sign
is always fixed by widely shared norms and is
intrinsically defined by its being part of a system
of other signs, namely the language system.
Hence, there is no natural or inevitable reason
why a given signifier and its signified should be
permanently connected. Saussure’s notion of
arbitrariness, then, ‘establishes the autonomy
of language in relation to reality’ (Chandler,
2002: 28). According to Saussure’s model,
language does not reflect reality; on the contrary,
language constructs reality.
While Saussure never studied language in
context, and his notion of sign was both static
and limited to verbal language, his structuralist
theory lent itself to the development of a conceptualization
of meaning as dependent on historical,
cultural, and social factors. For these reasons, a
structuralist approach to signification has been
widely adopted in cultural theory and visual
analysis.
SEMIOTICS AND THE VISUAL: ROLAND
BARTHES AND JEAN-MARIE FLOCH
Building on Saussure’s legacy, in the 1960s
Roland Barthes was the first semiologist to look at
signs and signification as dynamic elements of a
social and cultural fabric. He was also the first one
to focus systematically on ‘texts’ made of nonlinguistic
signs, particularly visual images but
also fashion, cities, music, and a range of popular
‘icons’ of French culture including, among others,
the Citroën car, the Eiffel Tower, the Tour de
France, and even wrestling and plastic (Barthes,
1972, 1979). Whereas Saussure had looked at
BK-SAGE-PAUWELS_MANNAY-190229-Chp23.indd 369 11/8/19 1:11 PM
The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods370
meaning-making in a synchronic manner (as if
frozen in time), Barthes was interested in how
meanings change across cultural and historical
contexts. Under Barthes’ influence, the term semiology
thus became associated with an interest in
the analysis of broader cultural practices, particularly
those related to popular and media culture.
With his theory on the layering of visual meaning,
Barthes laid the foundations for visual semiotics
as we know it today. Both in ‘The photographic
message’ (1977 [1961]) and, most famously, in
‘Rhetoric of the image’ (1977 [1964]), Barthes
claimed that visual meaning can be articulated
into the two separate levels of denotation and connotation.
The level of denotation corresponds to
the literal meaning of an image, or the immediate
meaning relating to what is represented in the
image. The level of connotation corresponds to the
symbolic or ideological meaning, or range of possible
meanings, of an image inscribed by cultural
codes. Codes can be defined as the ‘implicit rules’
(Sturken and Cartwright, 2009: 434) that govern
the ways in which those who make and use images
‘read’ their meanings. As part of a shared system
of culture, most of us are able to draw from the
same codes to interpret and understand images.
A now classic example used by Barthes (1977
[1964]) is that of an advertisement for a pasta
brand (Figure 23.2). The denotative meaning
(which is difficult to simply describe without
adding connotation) of the image used in the Pasta
Panzani ad is roughly this: a fishnet shopping
bag full of packaged pasta, canned tomato sauce,
onions, peppers, and mushrooms, together with a
packet of grated cheese, a tomato, and a mushroom
next to the bag, all of this being displayed against
a red background. Its connotative meaning is that
of Italianicity. Barthes also points out that this
ideological association between a simple shopping
bag bursting with Mediterranean vegetables
and pasta (along with the name Panzani, which is
part of the advertisement’s linguistic message) and
the ‘essence’ of being Italian generally works for
the French, whereas Italians might not even associate
a connotation of Italianicity to this message.
The ideological meaning of the image is therefore
context-dependent, and to achieve a similar outcome
in different contexts the denotative meaning
may need to be differentiated. The denotative message,
then, functions as a necessary support for the
connotative message, which in turn is seen as a
second meaning attached to the photographic message
proper (Barthes, 1977 [1961]).
Here Barthes (1977 [1964]) also discusses the
relationship between language and images. He
distinguishes between two key concepts regarding
this relationship, namely ‘anchorage’ and
‘relay’. In film and television as well as cartoons
and comic strips, there is a complementary relationship
between language and image, as both
words and pictures contribute to an overarching
‘story’. For example, cinematic dialogue contributes
‘meanings that are not to be found in the
image itself’ (Barthes, 1977 [1964]: 41). This is
what Barthes calls ‘relay’. In advertising and news
media, however, most often linguistic text is used
to fix or ‘anchor’ the meaning of an image.
The meaning of a news photograph can change
completely depending on how it is captioned. An
example of the importance of anchorage in visual
meaning can be found in the 2005 coverage of the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans,
when two very similar press photographs portraying
individuals wading through water while
carrying bags and backpacks were captioned in
radically different ways. One of the photographs
depicted a young black man with the following
caption: ‘A young man walks through chest-deep
flood water after looting a grocery store.’ The
other image, which portrayed a white man and a
light-skinned woman, was captioned in the following
way instead: ‘Two residents wade through
chest-deep water after finding bread and soda
from a local grocery store.’ Due to the choice of
words in the captions (‘looting’ versus ‘finding’),
these subjects were framed as a criminal and as
innocent citizens, respectively. And because the
portrayed individuals were black and white, this
Figure 23.2  Denotation and connotation
in Barthes’ famous Pasta Panzani
advertisement example
BK-SAGE-PAUWELS_MANNAY-190229-Chp23.indd 370 11/8/19 1:11 PM
Visual Semiotics: Key Concepts and New Directions 371
difference in framing also had racial implications
that were widely decried by many commentators
online and in the media (Ralli, 2005). As Barthes
(1977 [1964]: 40) states, anchorage is ideological
and even ‘repressive’, as it ‘directs the reader
through the signifieds of the image, causing him to
avoid some and receive others’.
In Mythologies (1972), Barthes introduced an
additional layer to signification: myth. Whereas
connotation is the ideological meaning that is
‘attached’ to a specific sign, myth relates to ideological
concepts that are ‘evoked’ by a certain
sign. These correspond to a worldview or ‘a culture’s
way of thinking about something, a way of
conceptualizing or understanding it’ (Fiske, 1990:
88). Barthes gave a striking visual example to
explain this point. He looked at the cover of a popular
French magazine, Paris-Match. On the cover,
a young black soldier in a French uniform ‘is
saluting, with his eyes uplifted, probably fixed on
a fold of the tricolour’ (Barthes, 1972: 116). In and
of itself, the denotative meaning of this image is ‘a
young black soldier giving the French salute’. The
connotative meaning of the image is a combination
of Frenchness and militariness. However, the
combination of denotative and connotative meaning
of this image becomes ‘form’ for a third layer
of meaning that is evoked (not symbolized) by
the image as a ‘chain of related concepts’ (Fiske,
1990: 88). According to Barthes (1972: 116), this
third order of signification is ‘that France is a great
Empire, that all her sons, without any colour discrimination,
faithfully serve under her flag, and
that there is no better answer to the detractors of
an alleged colonialism than the zeal shown by this
Negro (sic) in serving his so-called oppressors’.
Barthes explained that the young black soldier
giving the French salute is not a symbol, or something
that has acquired ‘through convention and
use a meaning that enables it to stand for something
else’ (Fiske, 1990: 91). The young black
soldier giving the French salute does not stand for
the concept of French imperiality as such. This
is because the function of the mythical sign is to
‘naturalize’ an historical and cultural concept. As
a whole, Barthes argued that bourgeois norms are
propagated by means of representation, and the
more these representations are propagated through
repetition and multiple signifiers, the more they
are experienced as universal laws. This process of
normalization causes myth to be ‘read as a factual
system, whereas it is but a semiological system’
(Barthes, 1972: 131).
While Barthes is without any doubt the most
important founding figure in visual semiotics,
another French semiotician, Jean-Marie Floch,
was also central to its development. Floch was
Barthes’ junior by over 30 years and his work is
not as widely known in global academia, both
because his publications have not been systematically
translated into English and because his
scholarship became associated with industrial
and applied semiotics, rather than with cultural
and ideological critique. Floch was trained by
Algirdas Julien Greimas, who was the founder
of the Paris School of semiotics. He directed the
visual semiotics workshop in Greimas’ ‘Groupe
de recherches sémio-linguistiques’ at the École
des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESSCNRS)
in Paris (Greimas et al., 1989).
Alongside Barthes, Greimas was one of the
most prominent French semioticians, but the two
developed radically different epistemologies and
semiotic frameworks – to the extent that Barthes,
who had been very close to Greimas both personally
and intellectually, distanced himself from the
Paris School (Samoyault, 2017). Unlike Barthes,
Greimas was not interested in the contingencies
of history and the power-laden cultural codes that
underlie meaning. Rather, he set out to develop a
comprehensive generative grammar of the ‘deep’
structures of narrative, and posited that ‘a finite
number of functional themes in binary opposition
juxtaposed with possible roles (subject-object;
sender-receiver; helper-opponent) would generate
the structures we call stories – all of them’ (Lenoir,
1994: 5). As one of Greimas’ key collaborators,
Floch became interested in developing a systematic
semiotic theory to identify the underlying patterns
and structures of visual images. However,
Floch’s approach also combined an interest in
the perceptual and compositional characteristics
of images with an attention towards their cultural
and historical significance from a representational
standpoint (Broden, 2002).
Floch’s approach to visual semiotics was based
on the distinction between figurative meaning and
plastic meaning. Figurative meaning pertains to the
representation of things and human beings, particularly
in relation to the visual traits that enable us
to recognize particular objects or subjects and the
narratives that are associated with their representation
(Floch, 1985). Plastic meaning, on the other
hand, relates to visual cues like line, shape, light,
colour, texture, and layout. These are all aspects
of an image that can have meanings that are independent
of what they represent from a figurative
standpoint (Greimas et al., 1989). While figurative
semiotics is germane to Barthes’ approach to the
‘rhetoric of the image’, plastic semiotics cannot be
reduced to representational features and, in fact,
constitutes an autonomous level of analysis which,
elsewhere, I have equated to an analysis of both
‘style’ and ‘design’ (Aiello, 2007).
Floch (1981) outlines this method in his analysis
of Wassily Kandinsky’s 1911 semi-abstract
BK-SAGE-PAUWELS_MANNAY-190229-Chp23.indd 371 11/8/19 1:11 PM
The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods372
painting Composition IV. First of all, he segments
the painting into its left and right sides, as these
are set apart by ‘plastic contrasts’. This means
that they are made of formally opposite visual elements
like, for example, multiple short and often
intersecting lines on the left side, and fewer but
longer and non-intersecting lines on the right side
(see Polidoro, 2008). He then proceeds to reconstruct
the meaning of this particular canvas by
examining it in relation to the Russian painter’s
‘Blaue Reiter’ period, which lasted approximately
from 1907 to 1916. Because Kandinsky’s painting
during this period went from being figurative to
being increasingly abstract, Floch is able to identify
the key visual devices that the Russian painter
usually associates with particular types of content
like ‘the knight’, ‘the saints’, or ‘the dawn’.
Through a careful evaluation of the continuities
and transformations in Kandinsky’s work, Floch
ultimately concludes that the left and right sides of
the painting are thematically different, as one side
represents the clash between good and evil, and
the other side represents the positive outcome of
this struggle, or where a new life begins. Because
the two sides of the painting are also set apart by
different visual traits, Floch concludes that this is a
semi-symbolic system where plastic contrasts pertaining
to the plane of expression correspond to
contrasts in the plane of content. The main goal of
plastic semiotics, then, is to understand how visual
form and the level of expression (or the plastic signifier)
make meaning in relation to the content of
an image (the signified), both autonomously and
alongside figurative elements (Floch, 1985).
Floch also used this model for his work as a
marketing and communication consultant in the
private sector (see Floch, 2001 [1990]). In his
best-known book, Visual Identities, Floch (2000
[1995]) applies his plastic approach to a series of
ground-breaking studies of brands like Chanel,
Waterman, Habitat, and both IBM and Apple.
Here, he also combines his original semiotic
model with broader considerations about the work
of designers and the role that their knowledge of
perceptual qualities, historical references, and cultural
narratives plays in the making of imagery as
a form of ‘bricolage’ (Broden, 2002). For example,
in his comparative analysis of the Apple and
IBM logos, Floch notes that a text like the Apple
logo – which does not imply a linear narrative and
which he thus calls a ‘mythogram’ – owes part
of its success to the simple abstract patterns and
forms that contribute to recreating an iconic rendition
of an apple. As he writes: ‘The rainbow apple,
minus bite, has the advantage of being much
easier to read’ (Floch, 2000 [1995]: 38). Overall,
Floch developed a visual semiotics centred on
the meaning-­making properties of form and its
relationship with content. While Floch’s approach
was original, it also conversed with iconography
(Panofsky, 1970) and the psychology of art (see
Arnheim, 1966).
As I will explain in the next section, Barthes’
focus on representation and connotation and
Floch’s emphasis on the perceptual and compositional
characteristics of images are both key to a
social semiotic understanding of visual analysis.
In combining both ideological and formal concerns
with a focus on cultural practices and social
action, social semiotics offers an especially comprehensive
and up-to-date framework for visual
analysis.
FROM SEMIOTICS TO SOCIAL SEMIOTICS
The main limitation of semiotics is that it is centred
on detailed analysis of texts and their components,
with little regard for the practices and
processes that underlie their production or reception.
It is however important to point out that
structuralism has contributed greatly to the development
of critical approaches to the visual across
a variety of disciplines.
Social semiotics originates from a synthesis
of structuralism and Halliday’s (1978 and 1985)
systemic functional linguistics (see also Gualberto
and Kress, 2020, this volume). Social semiotics is
functionalist in that it foregrounds choice and considers
all sign-making as having been developed to
perform specific actions, or semiotic work. Just like
traditional semiotics, social semiotics is concerned
with the internal structures of texts and, increasingly,
also of other semiotic artifacts (for example,
packaging) and semiotic technologies (for example,
PowerPoint). Unlike traditional semiotics
and other textual methodologies, social semiotics
places emphasis on the relationship between
form and how people make signs ‘in specific historical,
cultural and institutional contexts, and how
people talk about them in these contexts – plan
them, teach them, justify them, critique them, etc.’
(Van Leeuwen, 2005: 3). Further, social semiotics
interrogates the ideological underpinnings
and political implications of semiotic choices that
become naturalized over time, and which are thus
often taken for granted as the most sensible or
neutral ways of representing given types of knowledge
and information. It is in this sense that social
semiotics shares a structuralist sensibility with
Barthes’ semiological model. However, social
semiotics does not see ideology as one of the
components or layers of signification, but rather
as its premise. Social semioticians highlight that
BK-SAGE-PAUWELS_MANNAY-190229-Chp23.indd 372 11/8/19 1:11 PM
Visual Semiotics: Key Concepts and New Directions 373
texts are never made by accident (Iedema, 2001).
A central question here is ‘who made the rules and
how and why they might be changed’ (Jewitt and
Oyama, 2001: 135).
Social semiotics, then, sees meaning-making,
or signification, as a process deeply embedded in
existing cultural norms and shaped by social structures.
This is not unlike cultural studies, which had
a ‘semiotic turn’ between the 1980s and the 1990s
as scholars in this field adopted Saussure’s and
Barthes’ theories to focus on issues of meaning
and ideology in media representation, particularly
in relation to stereotyping (Hall, 1997). Cultural
studies and social semiotics share a Foucauldian
understanding of discourse and a Marxist framing
of ideology, leading to the assumption that
‘the power to signify is not a neutral force’ (Hall,
1982: 70) and that, in fact, it is rooted in inequality
(Hodge and Kress, 1988).
In the dialectic between text and context, a
social semiotic approach entails a primary focus
on textual structures or arrangements, whereas
cultural studies has eminently focused on the historical
roots of representation, the institutional
contexts of visual production, and different contexts
of viewing and image consumption (Lister
and Wells, 2001). Along the same lines, visual
rhetoric (see Gries, 2020, this volume) focuses
less on extracting meaning(s) from visual texts in
their own right and more on how images interpellate
audiences, or on how visual persuasion works
(Danesi, 2017).
Social semiotics, then, shares similar foundations
and goals with cultural studies as well as
visual rhetoric, but its analytical focus is firmly
on the text and the ways in which images ‘work’
semiotically. As a methodology that is highly
akin to critical discourse analysis, social semiotics
is interested in ‘the processes and products of
discourse’ and their ‘vital role in the production,
reproduction and transformation of the social practices
that constitute the society in which we live’
(Caldas-Coulthard and Van Leeuwen, 2003: 3).
Within this overarching framework, social semiotics
focuses specifically on how both language and
‘modes of communication other than language’
(Caldas-Coulthard and Van Leeuwen, 2003: 3)
work together to create meaning.
Overall, social semiotics considers ‘language’
as a system of various possible choices that can
be made depending on what sign-makers want
to achieve within the constraints or affordances
of given modes, media, and contexts (Ledin and
Machin, 2018). For this reason, social semiotics
replaces the structuralist notion of code with that
of semiotic resource. Van Leeuwen (2005: 285)
defines semiotic resources as physiological and
technological means for meaning-making such
as ‘the actions, materials and artifacts we use for
communicative purposes’.
For example, depending on the kind of identity
or ‘brand’ that we may want to communicate
for our café or restaurant (for example, rustic or
sophisticated, local or cosmopolitan, organic
or industrial), we will choose different kinds of
colour, texture, sound, and even smell, together
with their various combinations (see Aiello and
Dickinson, 2014; Ledin and Machin, 2018). Our
choices will not be narrowly defined by a ‘code’
linking signs with fixed meanings, but will rather
be informed by a field of meaning potentials associated
with the past and possible uses of given
semiotic resources in the interior design of cafés
and restaurants. According to a social semiotic
perspective, sign-making is ultimately governed,
though not determined, by authority, expertise,
or simple conformity in particular contexts (Van
Leeuwen, 2005). Hence, social semiotics is also
able to account both for top-down power and
bottom-up polysemy in relation to the uses of
semiotic resources. A social semiotic approach
to visual analysis, then, focuses primarily on
the ways in which given visual resources can be
deployed within and across texts to generate a
range of meaning potentials and, in this way, also
achieve specific ends.
An example of the relationship between visual
resources and meaning potentials can be found in
Jewitt and Oyama’s (2001) analysis of the visual
representation of masculinity in British sexual
health materials aimed at teenagers. They discuss
how a resource such as ‘point of view’ can be used –
even unwittingly – by the producers of educational
materials in ways that affirm hegemonic
norms of masculinity and narrowly define male
and female sexuality as opposite poles. For example,
a poster promoting safe sex through the use
of condoms portrays a young couple sitting in a
convertible. The man is sitting in the driver’s seat
and is positioned centrally and frontally in relation
to the viewer, whereas the woman is looking at her
partner and away from the viewer. While the man
is portrayed as ‘active’, the woman is portrayed
as ‘other’ and ‘passive’. The meaning potentials
made possible by the way in which point of view
is deployed in this text are narrowed down to a
few hegemonic reading options. That said, these
meanings are not inherent in the visual resources
deployed in imagery, but ‘need to be activated
by the producers and viewers of images’ (Jewitt
and Oyama, 2001: 135). Semiotic resources are
actively used both by producers and viewers of
images as cognitive resources to make sense of
visual messages.
From a methodological standpoint, social
semiotics combines descriptive, interpretive, and
BK-SAGE-PAUWELS_MANNAY-190229-Chp23.indd 373 11/8/19 1:11 PM
The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods374
critical aims (Thurlow and Aiello, 2007). First,
at a descriptive level, a social semiotic analysis
focuses on making inventories of key visual
resources in and across texts, thus also outlining
the basic semiotic repertoire of a given type of
imagery. Second, from an interpretive standpoint,
this analytical approach focuses on situating
visual resources and semiotic repertoires in their
specific historical, cultural, or institutional contexts
of production and/or use, considering how
key meaning potentials are established through
the selection and combination of particular visual
resources. Finally, from a critical perspective, a
social semiotic analysis links texts and contexts to
understand the ideological import of imagery and,
at times, also consider alternative visual resources
or ‘new uses of existing semiotic resources’ (Van
Leeuwen, 2005: 3). As a whole, this is a framework
that helps us ground the interpretive and
critical stages of our visual analysis in an empirical
observation of the visual text(s) at hand. It
is also for this reason that, for larger samples of
images, combining content analysis with social
semiotic analysis can be especially productive.
Most often, however, social semioticians analyze
images according to three main metafunctions –
namely, representational, interactive, and compositional
meaning. In Reading Images, Kress and
Van Leeuwen (2006) developed this highly influential
social semiotic framework for visual analysis
by adapting the three linguistic metafunctions
which were originally outlined by Halliday (1985)
to describe the three types of ‘work’ that all languages
do regardless of cultural context.
In Jewitt and Oyama’s health poster example,
representational meaning is related to the image’s
overall ‘story’: a (sexual) relationship between a
young woman and a young man in an urban setting.
The image’s interactive meaning is found in
the relationship to the viewer: the woman looks
away while the man’s gaze is direct, thus making
him less socially distanced from the viewer. Here,
compositional meaning is tied to the image’s layout,
where the young man and the condom packet
are placed in a salient position (at the centre of the
image) and the text anchors the image as a health
advertisement.
Through these three metafunctions, social
semioticians can engage, both systematically and
descriptively, with the detail of visual texts while
also raising questions about the situated meanings
of their visual resources together with the
cultural, social, or political implications of the
ways in which these visual resources are deployed
within and across images. This is not unlike what
Barthes’ denotation/connotation model does, but
the social semiotic framework offers a more finegrained
approach to visual analysis, as it takes
into account a number of ‘techniques’ through
which each of these levels of meaning may be
established.
A social semiotic analysis of visual imagery
will thus typically begin by offering some background
information on the type of image or
images being analyzed to then address three main
questions (for a more detailed explanation of the
three metafunctions and the visual features that
realize them together with their meaning potentials,
see Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006):
1	 What is the representational meaning of an
image or set of images? In other words, what
is the ‘story’ (or stories) that is represented?
Who are the key ‘participants’ (the people or
objects portrayed); how are they represented as
types or as parts of a broader ‘whole’; what are
some of the actions that are performed by participants,
for example in relation to themselves or
others, a certain product, or their environment?
Specifically, here we are concerned with (a) the
narrative structures of images, or the actions and
processes that are visually represented by means
of vectors, and (b) the conceptual structures of
images (these can be classificatory, analytical, or
symbolic), or the ways in which the ‘essence’ of
participants is represented, for example in terms
of their attributes or relations with other people
and objects in the image.
2	 What is the interactive meaning of an image
or set of images? In other words, how do the
images interact with the viewer, for example by
means of a portrayed person’s gaze, a certain
camera angle, and frame size? Specifically, here
we focus on (a) point of view, or the angle at
which the image is shot or presented; (b) contact,
or the gaze of the portrayed subject, which can
be direct or indirect; and (c) distance, or whether
the image is framed as a long shot, a medium
shot, or a close up, thus representing participants
as more or less close to the viewer.
3	 What is the compositional meaning of an image
or set of images? In other words, how are particular
images laid out or organized, for example
through the ways in which different visual cues or
objects are placed in the image, are made more
or less salient, connected, or disconnected, or
are made to look more or less real? Specifically,
here we focus on (a) information value, or the
placement of various elements within the image
(left or right, top or bottom, centre or margin);
(b) salience, or how different elements within the
image are made to attract the viewer’s attention
BK-SAGE-PAUWELS_MANNAY-190229-Chp23.indd 374 11/8/19 1:11 PM
Visual Semiotics: Key Concepts and New Directions 375
to different degrees, for example through their
placement in the background or foreground, their
relative size, colour contrasts, or differences in
sharpness; (c) framing, or whether and how elements
in the visual text are connected or disconnected
through devices like spacing or dividing
lines; and (d) modality, or how more or less real
the image or different components of the image
are made to look.
Translating Halliday’s three metafunctions into a
model for visual analysis has been deemed problematic,
because it may lead to the development of
a rigid ‘grammar’ of visual communication based
on linguistic principles but also because, in line
with Floch’s plastic semiotics, a semiotic understanding
of visual images ought to exceed an
evaluation of their content alone by considering
the ‘plane of expression’ as equally significant
(Eco, 1976; Ledin and Machin, 2018). Precisely
because using the three metafunctions is not a sufficient
method to address the specificity and situatedness
of visual images, an analysis of
representational, interactive, and compositional
meaning also needs to be combined with an evaluation
of four further aspects pertaining to the
materials, uses, styles, and practices that shape
images’ visual resources and meaning potentials.
These are:
1	 The affordances that set apart the semiotic materials
of the visual text or texts being examined, or
the types of communicative acts and meanings
that are enabled by their particular form of communication.
As Ledin and Machin (2018) explain,
photography and film, for example, have material
qualities and features (such as stillness versus
movement) that shape and make them apt for
certain kinds of communication and interaction
but not others.
2	 The canons of use associated with visual texts’
semiotic materials, or the ‘typical work’ that such
materials (photography or film, but also packaging,
documents, or retail spaces) carry out in our
culture. In other words, we need to understand
the histories and traditions that shape the ways
in which images are used in specific contexts and
the discourses and values that particular types of
images are usually made to communicate (Ledin
and Machin, 2018).
3	 The role that non-figurative, plastic elements
play in shaping the style and overall content
of imagery (Floch, 1981, 1985), insofar as the
meanings of design resources like shape, light,
colour, texture, and layout, cannot be completely
captured by an analysis of representational,
interactive, and compositional meaning alone
(this is especially true for non-photographic and
minimalistic images like logos; see Johannessen,
2017). It is also important to point out that a
social semiotic analysis ought to consider how
image-makers can and do take advantage of
experiential metaphors (Van Leeuwen, 2006)
and the perceptual qualities of imagery to ‘work’
on the viewer in particular ways, for example by
creating illusions of movement through motion
effects such as flickering (Gombrich, 1982).
4	 The specific creative, professional, or viewing
practices that contribute to the visual resources
and meaning potentials that set apart particular
visual texts – for example through interviews
and/or ethnographic fieldwork with key producers
or users of imagery (see Aiello, 2012).
As a whole, these are all analytical dimensions
that go hand in hand and which contribute to a
critical analysis of visual texts, as their materials,
uses, styles, and practices have all developed to
accomplish communicative aims in the service of
particular interests.
READING IMAGES: SOCIAL SEMIOTICS
FOR VISUAL ANALYSIS
I am now going to briefly demonstrate this
approach to visual analysis through an example
from my own original research on stock photography.
Here I choose to examine a single image
from the world-leading commercial image bank
Getty Images, but social semiotic analysis can be
performed on larger sets of images, for example in
combination with content analysis, or by examining
key patterns across images and then performing
a detailed analysis of a few typical cases. I
focus specifically on an image included in the
Lean In Collection, an initiative resulting from a
partnership between Getty Images and Sheryl
Sandberg, the Facebook executive who authored
the best-selling book and ‘feminist manifesto’
Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. The
Lean In Collection aims to provide commercial
images that represent women in non-stereotypical,
more authentic, and more empowered ways. The
slogan that was chosen for the Lean In Collection
is ‘You can’t be what you can’t see’. This is a
particularly significant statement because, historically,
stock photography has relied on clichés and
BK-SAGE-PAUWELS_MANNAY-190229-Chp23.indd 375 11/8/19 1:11 PM
The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods376
stereotypes to symbolize generic identities (such
as ‘mother’, ‘beautiful woman’, ‘career woman’)
and universal ideas or concepts (‘love’, ‘happiness’,
‘freedom’). For this reason, and despite its
ubiquity, stock photography has been discounted
as bland and insignificant if not downright ridiculous.
As an example, there are entire Tumblr galleries
devoted to the derision of stock photography
with titles like ‘Women Laughing Alone with
Salad’ or ‘Women Struggling to Drink Water’.
Over the last few years, major industry players
like Getty Images have taken it upon themselves
to update and even ‘politicize’ the visual language
of stock photography as a way to freshen up their
brand and ensure that their product continues to be
appealing among the many producers of media
texts who use pre-produced images, particularly
for profitable keywords like ‘woman’, ‘family’,
and ‘business’ (Aiello and Woodhouse, 2016).
Overall, however, stock photographs are still
typically staged, decontextualized, and clichéd
(Machin, 2004). As Ledin and Machin (2018: 46)
explain, this is because ‘canons of use’ of the
symbolic image include advertising, branding,
web design, and promotional media more broadly,
where generic representations of people and
objects are used to load ‘a set of ideas and values
onto products’ or services. Hence, for commercial
reasons, stock photographs are supposed
to be idealized, simplified, and upbeat. In spite
of their attempts to represent women as both
authentic and empowered, even images from the
Lean In Collection must be recognizable and
usable as symbolic, generic images.
The Lean In image that I chose for this analysis
is one such case, as it portrays a female scientist
at work in a lab (Figure 23.3). It was created by a
London-based photographer with the aim to have
it included in this collection. To understand more
about the creative process that led to the semiotic
choices that were made to craft this image,
I interviewed the photographer about this and
other images in the same series. Before discussing
the interview, I now turn to examining the image
according to its representational, interactive, and
compositional meaning.
From a representational standpoint, we immediately
understand that the woman portrayed in the
image is a scientist, because she is wearing a white
lab coat together with protective gloves. These
are ‘props’, or symbolic conceptual structures,
that define her identity, together with the general
setting of the lab. While she is not handling any
particularly stereotypical scientific prop, like a
microscope or a pipette, both the machine in front
of her and the sealed bottles and containers on
the shelves in the background communicate that
this is a lab. In addition, the dominance of colours
such as white and blue points to meaning potentials
related to efficiency and technology. In terms
of analytical conceptual structures, other personal
attributes like the woman’s eyeglasses and the fact
that she is visibly Asian ‘code’ this image further,
as both of these signifiers are associated with the
scientific professions in popular visual culture. It
is also worth noting that she is alone, she is relatively
young, and she is smiling. These are also
all key visual features of stock photography, which
Figure 23.3  A stock photograph of a real scientist at work in her lab
BK-SAGE-PAUWELS_MANNAY-190229-Chp23.indd 376 11/8/19 1:11 PM
Visual Semiotics: Key Concepts and New Directions 377
typically tends to privilege a focus on the individual
together with youthfulness and an optimistic
outlook. In terms of narrative structures, the vectors
outlined by the subject’s hands and gaze index
that she is performing an action on the machine
in front of her. We thus clearly see her at work,
both happily and individually, in a setting where
she feels confident – as suggested by the firm
placement of her hands on the machine and on the
workbench, together with her gaze.
From an interactive standpoint, the viewer is
positioned as a fairly close spectator. The subject
does not make eye contact with the viewer,
and her ‘offer gaze’ indicates that we are
observing her rather than engaging directly with
her. The image’s point of view is horizontal,
thus establishing an equal or ‘neutral’ amount
of power between the viewer and the portrayed
subject. In addition, the image is a medium shot,
which suggests a certain amount of closeness
but also proper distance. The angle and size of
this image indicate that we could be standing
not far from the portrayed subject to observe
her as she performs her experiment, and that she
is letting us watch her as she demonstrates her
work process.
From a compositional standpoint, the image
is more complex than a typical stock image.
Unlike traditional stock photos and symbolic
images more broadly, here the background is not
stripped down or blank but well defined and cluttered
instead, suggesting an authentic everyday
work setting. While modality is higher in the foreground,
where the scientist and the machine are
placed, and the background is slightly blurred, this
is a highly naturalistic image, also thanks to the
colours, which are neither saturated nor muted.
At the same time, the image is brightly lit and
colours appear as fairly flat, as is typical of symbolic
images. Furthermore, the most salient element
of this image are the scientist’s hands, both
because they are placed in the centre and because
the gloves’ blue colour creates a contrast against
the whiteness of the countertop and her lab coat.
The salience of this detail is linked not only to
the image’s focus on science but also to some
of the broader concepts encapsulated in some of
the keywords associated with this image, such as
‘Research’ and ‘Skill’.
When I interviewed the photographer who
created this image, I wanted to know more about
the semiotic choices that she had made to make
sure that this and other shots she submitted for
inclusion in the Lean In Collection would represent
women as more authentic and empowered.
She told me that hers was a new approach, as
this and the other stock images that she contributed
to the collection portrayed real professional
scientists in their workplace, whereas traditionally
photographs of people working in sectors
like science and engineering had shown models
handling scientific props that they knew nothing
about, which meant that the end result lacked
authenticity. Hence, she shot real scientists in
the labs in which they worked daily, and claimed
that the shots were not staged and were a technically
correct reflection of what these scientists
do. To ensure accuracy, she also asked the scientists
to help her craft the written text (both titles
and keywords) accompanying the images. This
said, she also airbrushed all specific references
to the university labs in which the scientists were
portrayed, such as logos on lab coats and other
fixtures, to ensure that the images would be as
generic as possible.
The photographer highlighted that all of
the scientists portrayed in these photographs
were enthusiastic about taking part in the initiative.
She stated that ‘they feel strongly that they’re
underrepresented’ because ‘in this kind of work
environment they see women drop out all the
time, so they want to inspire the next generation’.
However, the photographer also admitted that she
was not in charge of deciding whether these photographs
would go into the Lean In Collection.
Moreover, decisions regarding the ways in which
the images would be used were out of her hands,
and she did not even get detailed information on
who purchased the images.
Overall, the stock image that I just analyzed is
slightly different from a typical symbolic image,
in that the portrayed subject is contextualized to
a greater degree, both through a more detailed
setting and a more realistic approach to representing
her actions. However, the image is still
centred on key rules, and therefore also ideological
tenets, of stock photography. First, it focuses
on the individual and on her actions and attributes
(rather than on teamwork or collaboration,
for example). Second, it foregrounds a generic
and commercially viable identity rather than
a specific form of subjectivity, in that the portrayed
scientist remains unnamed and is definedvisually
but also verbally- in the photograph’s
title and keywords as ‘young’, ‘beautiful’, and
‘smiling’, and as both ‘Asian’ and of ‘Chinese
Ethnicity’. Third, it makes broader concepts like
‘science’, ‘research’, or ‘skill’ more visually
salient than specific details pertaining to the scientist,
her lab, or the machine that she is operating.
The photographer’s decisions and practices
underlying the making of this and other images
also point to difficulties in breaking the rules of
stock photography as such, given her lack
of control over the placement, sales, and uses of
her images.
BK-SAGE-PAUWELS_MANNAY-190229-Chp23.indd 377 11/8/19 1:11 PM
The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods378
CONCLUSION
A semiotic approach to the visual entails a focus on
what Rose (2016) defines as the ‘site of the image’,
or on images themselves, rather than their contexts
of production or reception. This said, contemporary
approaches to visual semiotics are set apart by a
keen focus on the cultural and social contexts in
which images are made and consumed. In other
words, both what Rose (2016) defines as the ‘site of
production’ and the ‘site of audiencing’ have
become central to an understanding of the ways in
which images work as texts. In addition, among
visual semioticians there is increasing attention
towards the broader ‘lives’ of images themselves.
Aspects like materiality, circulation, and recontextualization
are becoming key to semiotic analyses
of visuals (see Aiello, 2016). In the age of digital
reproduction, it is increasingly important for visual
semioticians to be able to understand where images
are physically located and what their key technological
features are, how and where they are shared
both online and offline, and where and how they are
used, re-used, and re-fashioned – often multiple
times, as in the case of memes and viral images.
Overall, however, visual semiotics is set apart
by a keen focus on the formal aspects of imagery,
and this is both its main strength and its main weakness.
On the one hand, using a semiotic approach
to visual analysis enables us to examine imagery
both systematically and critically, thus also combining
‘analytical precision’ (Rose, 2016: 107)
with an ability to link textual details to overarching
power dynamics. On the other hand, traditional
semiotic analysis is not able to account for the role
that both producers and viewers play in meaningmaking,
together with other aspects pertaining to
the broader contexts in which images ‘live’.
For this reason, semiotic analyses are often discounted
as being merely individual readings of a
particular text or set of texts rather than evidencedriven
studies. Even in its most contemporary declinations,
semiotic analysis often needs to rely on
other forms of data collection – like interviews,
focus groups, or historical research – and analysis to
corroborate key findings on the ‘meanings’ of particular
images. By the same token, semiotic analysis
is also a great complement to empirical approaches
such as content analysis or visual framing analysis,
as it offers the interpretive and critical instruments
that more descriptive methodologies often lack.
Notes
1 	 Parts of this chapter have been adapted from my
2006 journal article ‘Theoretical advances in critical
visual analysis: Perception, ideology, mythologies
and social semiotics’ previously published in
the Journal of Visual Literacy, 26(2), 89–102.
2 	 Onomatopoeia refers to the formation of a word
from a sound associated with what is named, for
example cuckoo or sizzle.
REFERENCES
Aiello, Giorgia (2007) ‘The appearance of diversity:
Visual design and the public communication of EU
identity’, in J. Bain and M. Holland (eds), European
Union Identity: Perceptions from Asia and Europe.
Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 147–81.
Aiello, Giorgia (2012) ‘The “other” Europeans: The
semiotic imperative of style in Euro Visions by
Magnum Photos’, Visual Communication, 11(1),
49–77.
Aiello, Giorgia (2016) ‘Taking stock’, Ethnography
Matters. Available from: https://ethnographymatters.
net/blog/2016/04/28/taking-stock/ [Accessed 13
January 2019].
Aiello, Giorgia and Dickinson, Greg (2014) ‘Beyond
authenticity: A visual-material analysis of locality in
the global redesign of Starbucks stores’, Visual
Communication, 13(3), 303–21.
Aiello, Giorgia and Woodhouse, Anna (2016) ‘When
corporations come to define the visual politics of
gender: The case of Getty Images’, Journal of
Language and Politics, 15(3), 352–68.
Arnheim, Rudolf (1966) Toward a Psychology of
Art: Collected Essays. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Bal, Mieke and Bryson, Norman (1991) ‘Semiotics
and art history’, The Art Bulletin, 73(2),
174–208.
Barthes, Roland (1972) Mythologies. New York: The
Noonday Press.
Barthes, Roland (1977 [1961]) ‘The photographic
message’, in Image – Music – Text. Trans. Stephen
Heath. New York: Hill and Wang, pp. 15–31.
Barthes, Roland (1977 [1964]) ‘Rhetoric of the
image’, in Image – Music – Text. Trans. Stephen
Heath. New York: Hill and Wang, pp. 32–51.
Barthes, Roland (1979) The Eiffel Tower and Other
Mythologies. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Broden, Thomas F. (2002) ‘IN MEMORIAM: JeanMarie
Floch (1947–2001)’, American Journal of
Semiotics, 18(1–4), 193–208.
Caldas-Coulthard, Carmen Rosa and van Leeuwen,
Theo (2003) ‘Critical social semiotics: Introduction’,
Social Semiotics, 13(1), 3–4.
Chandler, Daniel (2002) Semiotics: The Basics. New
York: Routledge.
BK-SAGE-PAUWELS_MANNAY-190229-Chp23.indd 378 11/8/19 1:11 PM
Visual Semiotics: Key Concepts and New Directions 379
Danesi, Marcel (2017) ‘Visual rhetoric and semiotic’,
in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication.
Available from: http://communication.oxfordre.
com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.
001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-43
[Accessed 19 January 2019].
Eco, Umberto (1976) A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press.
Fiske, John (1990) Introduction to Communication
Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Floch, Jean-Marie (1981) ‘Kandinsky: sémiotique
d’un discours plastique non figurative’, Communications,
34, 135–58. Available from: www.persee.
fr/doc/comm_0588-8018_1981_num_34_1_1511
[Accessed 19 January 2019].
Floch, Jean-Marie (1985) Petites Mythologies de
l’Oeil et de l’Esprit: Pour une Sémiotique Plastique.
Paris and Amsterdam: Hadès-Benjamins.
Floch, Jean-Marie (2000 [1995]) Visual Identities.
New York: Continuum.
Floch, Jean-Marie (2001 [1990]) Semiotics, Marketing
and Communication: Beneath the Signs, the
Strategies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gombrich, Ernst H. (1982) ‘Moment and movement
in art’, in The Image and the Eye: Further Studies
in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation.
Oxford: Phaidon, pp. 40–62.
Greimas, Algirdas Julien, Collins, Frank and Perron,
Paul (1989) ‘Figurative semiotics and the semiotics
of the plastic arts’, New Literary History, 20(3),
627–49.
Gries, Laurie (2020) ‘Advances in visual rhetorical
analysis’, in L. Pauwels and D. Mannay (eds), The
Sage Handbook of Visual Research Methods, 2nd
edn. London: Sage, pp. 381–396.
Gualberto, Clarice and Kress, Gunther (2020)
‘Contemporary landscapes of visual and digital
communication: The interplay of social, semiotic,
and technological change’, in L. Pauwels and
D. Mannay (eds), The Sage Handbook of Visual
Research Methods, 2nd edn. London: Sage,
pp. 574–590.
Hall, Stuart (1982) ‘The rediscovery of “ideology”:
Return of the repressed in media studies’, in
M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran and J. Woollacott
(eds), Culture, Society and the Media. London
and New York: Methuen, pp. 56–90.
Hall, Stuart (1997) ‘The work of representation’, in
S. Hall (ed.), Representation: Cultural Representations
and Signifying Practices. London: Sage,
pp. 13–74.
Halliday, Michael (1978) Language as Social
Semiotic. London: Arnold.
Halliday, Michael (1985) An Introduction to
Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
Hodge, Robert and Kress, Gunther (1988) Social
Semiotics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Iedema, Rick (2001) ‘Analysing film and television: A
social semiotic account of Hospital: An Unhealthy
Business’, in T. van Leeuwen and C. Jewitt (eds),
Handbook of Visual Analysis. London: Sage,
pp. 183–204.
Jewitt, Carey and Oyama, Rumiko (2001) ‘Visual
meaning: A social semiotic approach’, in T. van
Leeuwen and C. Jewitt (eds), Handbook of Visual
Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 134–56.
Johannessen, Christian Mosbæk (2017) ‘Experiential
meaning potential in the Topaz Energy logo: A
framework for graphemic and graphetic analysis
of graphic logo design’, Social Semiotics, 27(1),
1–20.
Kress, Gunther and van Leeuwen, Theo (2006) Reading
Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd
edn. New York: Routledge.
Ledin, Per and Machin, David (2018) Doing Visual
Analysis: From Theory to Practice. London: Sage.
Lenoir, Timothy (1994) ‘Was that last turn a
right turn? The semiotic turn and A. J. Greimas’,
Configurations, 2, 119–36.
Lister, Martin and Wells, Liz (2001) ‘Seeing beyond
belief: Cultural studies as an approach to analysing
the visual’, in T. Van Leeuwen and C. Jewitt (eds),
Handbook of Visual Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 61–91.
Lomax, Helen and Fink, Janet (2020) ‘Understanding
online images: Content, context and circulation as
analytical foci’, in L. Pauwels and D. Mannay (eds),
The Sage Handbook of Visual Research Methods,
2nd edn. London: Sage, pp. 591–603.
Machin, David (2004) ‘Building the world’s visual
language: The increasing global importance of
image banks in corporate media’, Visual Communication,
3(3), 316–36.
Nöth, Winfried (1990) Handbook of Semiotics.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Panofsky, Erwin (1970) Meaning in the Visual Arts.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Peirce, Charles Sanders (1931–1958) Collected
Papers, Vols 1–6, C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (eds);
Vols 7–8, A. W. Burks (ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Polidoro, Piero (2008) Che Cos’è la Semiotica Visiva.
Roma: Carocci.
Ralli, Tania (2005) ‘Who’s a looter? In storm’s aftermath,
pictures kick up a different kind of tempest’,
The New York Times, September 5. Available from:
www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/business/whos-
a-looter-in-storms-aftermath-pictures-kick-up-adifferent.html
[Accessed 19 January 2019].
Rose, Gillian (2016) Visual Methodologies, 4th edn.
London: Sage.
Samoyault, Tiphaine (2017) Barthes: A Biography.
Cambridge: Polity.
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1983 [1916]) Course in
General Linguistics. London: Duckworth.
BK-SAGE-PAUWELS_MANNAY-190229-Chp23.indd 379 11/8/19 1:11 PM
The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods380
Sturken, Marita and Cartwright, Lisa (2009)
Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual
Culture, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Thurlow, Crispin and Aiello, Giorgia (2007)
‘National pride, global capital: A social semiotic
analysis of transnational visual branding in the
airline industry’, Visual Communication, 6(3),
305–44.
Van Leeuwen, Theo (2005) Introducing Social Semiotics.
London: Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, Theo (2006) ‘Towards a semiotics of
typography’, Information Design Journal + Document
Design, 14(2), 139–55.
BK-SAGE-PAUWELS_MANNAY-190229-Chp23.indd 380 11/8/19 1:11 PM