Constructionism

What is constructionism ?

By Alfred Marleku

Human beings created a world of messages and meanings and continue to create new ones to look for the meaning of life. In order to communicate with each other and leave their stories for the new generation, humans have been using the power of images and symbols since the beginning of the human history. It is this greatest purpose – communication – that makes human beings to construct their system of signs and symbols – their language – to make the world meaningful.

This essay is an attempt to deal, in general, with question of representation – the production of meaning through language. In first part of the essay we define, shortly, three theories of representation, with the main focus on the constructionist theory. In the second part we will show how the constructionist approach has to do with representation, the relationship between them. And, in third part we will explain the importance that these theories have in relation with communication. We will focus our attention on structuralist semiotics – in Ferdinand de Saussure and Roland Barthes works.


2. WHAT IS CONSTRUCTIONISM?

There exists a system of signs between human beings and the world they experience. Signs acquire meaning through being structured into codes. The principal being code is language (Fowler 1991, p.3). In language we use signs and symbols - whether they are sounds, written words, electronically produced images, musical notes, even objects – to stand for or represent to other people our concepts, ideas and feelings (Hall 2003, p.1).

Language operates as a representational system. According to Stuart Hall, representation is the process by which members of a culture use language (broadly defined as any signifying system deploying signs) to produce meaning (2003, p.61). According to this view, meaning is thought to be constructed. Thus, this is a matter of invention/creation: there is no meaning that we simply can ‘find’ somewhere. We have to construct it, to produce it.

We will briefly look at a number of different theories about how language is used to represent the world. A distinction between three different approaches or theories will be drawn in this regard: reflective, intentional and constructionist one.

Reflective theory of representation claims that language reflects true meaning, the same as it exists in the world. Languages simply reflect meaning which already exists out there in the world of objects, peoples and events (Hall 2003, p.15). The intentional theory of representation pretends that words mean what the author intends them to mean. Language expresses only what the speaker or writer or painter wants to say, his/her personally intended meaning (Hall 2003, p.15). As we can see, intentional theory is in fact the opposite of the reflective approach. According to the constructive theory of representation, neither things in themselves nor the individual users of language can fix meaning to the language. Instead, meanings are contextual: the particular symbolic fixes a meaning at a particular time (Hall 2003, p.15). In other words, meaning is constructed in and through language.

After these three deferent theories of representation are briefly explained, we will try to explain furthermore the constructionist approach, because of significant impact it has had in cultural studies in recent years. As Stuart Hall argued, constructionist approach, assumes neither things themselves nor the individual users of language can fix meaning to the language (2003, p.25). Thinks don’t mean. We are those to construct meaning, using representational systems: concepts and signs (Hall 2003, p.25). He argued that it is not the material world which conveys meaning; it is the language system or whatever system we are using to represent our concepts. Social actors employing conceptual, linguistic and other representational systems construct meaning to make the world meaningful and to communicate the others that world meaningfully (Hall 2003, p.25).


3. WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH REPRESENTATION?

Relationship between constructionist theory and representation - as production of meaning through language - is recursive: one cannot exist without the other. As we mention above, language is defined as set of signs, symbols – be those sounds, words or whatever else – through which we represent other people our concepts, thoughts or feelings. So, language is a representation system involving a process of constructing meaning, making things meaningful (Hall 2003, p.18). At this point, it is obvious that, in one hand, language is constructed by symbols and signs and in the other hand, it is language that enables us to construct meaning.

We can not have language without constructing it. If there is no language, there is no meaning, because things don’t mean anything by themselves. For example, the large plant that grows in nature, in English, is defined as TREE. It is not possible that real trees know that they are trees. They also can’t know that word in English, which represent the concept of them, written as TREE, whereas in French it is written ARBRE (Hall 2003, p.21), or in Albanian as PEMË. Furthermore, even Plato (427-347 B.C.E.) explored this arbitrary nature of the linguistic sign. He suggested separateness between an object and the name used to signify that object; he argues that any name given to something is the right one, and if you change that and give another, the new name is as correct as the old one (Plato in Ryder 2004).

Therefore, meaning is not in the object or person or thing, nor is it in the world. It is we who fix the meaning so firmly that (Hall 2003, p.21). Through this process we create, as Stuart Hall calls, ‘maps of meaning’ (2003, p.29), a set of codes that are essential for meaning and representation (Hall 2003, p.29). It is obvious that these sorts of signs, symbols – these codes - do not exist in nature. This is result of social convention, which enables us to create/construct the representational process – the usage of language to produce meaning.

This way of thinking is also supported by Bal Chandra Luitel. Luitel argues that constructionist approach and representation are carried out by what he calls ‘social constructionist orientation of knowledge’ (Luitel 2002), in which social interchange has major role in constructing and representing of knowledge. Explicitly speaking, the constructionist approach and representation of meaning is achieved through social interdependence which is context - dependent and serves public function.


4. WHY DO SUCH THEORIES MATTER IN RELATION TO COMMUNICATION?

The importance of such theories in relation to communication is great. It is, of course, not very hard talk just about what the constructionist approach is, or what representation means. We need more subtle understanding of the process – the impact these theories have in communication and media. In order to explain this important relation, we will focus on structural semiotics - more precisely, in Ferdinand de Saussure and Roland Barthes works.

Semiotics is the study of everything that can be used for communication: words, images, traffic signs, flowers, music, medical symptoms, and many more. Martin Ryder in his essay ‘Semiotics: Language and Culture’, defines semiotics as a branch of communication theory that investigates sign systems and the modes of representation use by humans to convey feelings, thoughts, ideas, and ideologies (Ryder 2004). In other way the well-known Italian linguist Umberto Eco in his book, A Theory of Semiotics, jokingly suggests that “semiotics is a discipline for studying everything that can be used to lie”, because 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” (Eco in Ryder 2004).


4.1 The Basic Concepts of Semiotics According to Saussure

One of the greatest authors in modern semiotic theory is Swiss-French linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). He is considered as ‘father of the modern linguistics’ (Hall 2003, p.30). Saussure sought to explain how all elements of a language are taken as components of a larger system of language at use. (Ryder 2004). This work led him to a formal discipline called semiology.

For Saussure (according to Jonathan Culler quoted in Stuart Hall’s book), the production of meaning depends on language (Culler in Hall 2003, p.31). Hall explains that language is a system of signs; sounds, images, written words, paintings, photographs etc., which function as sign within a language only when we serve to express or communicate ideas (2003, p.31). Only through this process of communicating ideas they can be part of a conventionalsystem (Hall 2003, p.31). Therefore, communication process - defined as process of increasing communality or shearing between participants on the basis of sending and receiving ‘messages’ (McQuail 2005, p.551) - is the basic idea of the existence of language.

Saussure analyzed ‘dyadic’ or two-part model of the sign. He defines a sign as being composed by a signifier – the form which sign takes - and the signified – the idea or the concept it represent (Hall 2003, p.31). Saussure argued that any sign must have both a signifier and a signified. You cannot have a totally meaningless signifier or a completely formless signified (Saussure in Chandell 2002, pp.18-20). It is important to notice that, according to Saussure, the sign is completely arbitrary (Hall 2003, p.31), i.e. there was no necessary connection between the sign and its meaning.

Saussure draws a distinction between language (langue) and the activity of speaking (parole). He argues that Langue is the rules of sign system (which might be grammar) and Parole is the articulation of signs (speech, writing...) (Fuller & Waugh 1999, p.96). In order to communicate our ideas, we need to know the rules and conventions but langue itself is not enough to create meaning. For instance; Chomsky’s famous phrase ‘Colorless green ideas sleep furiously’ is grammatically correct but meaningless (Fuller & Waugh 1999, p.96-98). Therefore, without studying the language and its grammar (langue), we may only understand the surface of the production (parole). In this context, language is a connection between thought and sound, and a means for thought to be expressed as sound. Spoken language includes the communication of concepts by means of sound-images from the speaker to the listener. Language is a product of the speaker’s communication of signs to the listener (Fuller & Waugh 1999, p.102).

Saussure always emphasized that structure, rules and codes, is the social part of language, the part that could be studied with the law – like precision of a science because of its closed, limited nature (Hall 2003, p.33). It is his strong concern for structure of language that made people to call Saussure and his model of language, structuralism.


4.2 Roland Barthes: Denotation – Connotation and Myths

Roland Barthes (1915-1980) is probably the most significant semiologist to assume the mantle of Saussure. Barthes's most influential work is Mythologies, which keeps influencing on critical theory even today. He was concerned even with relationship between sings and their meanings - denotation and connotation.

The distinction between denotation and connotation is the guiding idea of Barthes' semiotic theory. Most signs have at least one normal, "common sense" meaning. This meaning, called the sign's denotation, is shared among many people and is the most widely used meaning of the sign (Hall 2003, p.38). But, signs also may have many different "subjective" meanings that arise from each individual's personal experiences. These are called the connotations of the sign (Culler 2002, pp.20-28).

Roland Barthes defined semiotics and myth in a different way. He explored from Greek myths to legends also how signs represent value system or ideology in a particular society and make these values seem natural (Culler 2002, p.25). An example will clarify Barthes’s point. A flower with a red pedals, green leaves and a thorny stem signifies the mental concept of rose in denotative level. However, if it is used in the context of Valentine's Day, it signifies romance, creating a connotation (Culler 2002, p.26.).


Barthes saw "myths" all around him: media, fashion, art, photography, architecture, and especially literature. According to him, myths are signs that carrying larger cultural meanings. He describes myth as a well-formed, sophisticated system of communication that serves the ideological aims of a dominant class (Ryder 2004). Barthes observes that the myth is more understandable and more confident than the story that it supplants, because the myth introduces self-evident truths that in conformity with the dominant historical and cultural position (Ryder 2004).


5. CONCLUSION

To conclude, the representational system, defined here as production of meaning through language, is very important in day life. In order to enable this process – representation – we must create our own system of signs and symbols, our language.

There exist three theories of representation, reflective, intentional and constructionist one. The most inflective theory in cultural studies, in recent years, is constructionist one. The basic idea of this theory is that meaning is socially constructed. Thinks don’t have meaning in themselves. We are those attaching meaning to them.

The relation between constructionist theory and representation is recursive. They operate through one depended process, one cannot exist without other. Language is constructed by symbols and signs, but it is language that enables us to construct meaning. These theories are very useful in relation with communication. This impact is more obvious when we work through structuralist semiotics.

Semiotics, in fact, is everything that can be used for communication; like words, images, music, medical symptoms etc. There are two authors that have had great impact in structuralist semiotics, Ferdinand de Saussure and Roland Barthes. Saussure emphasize that the production of meaning depends in language.

Therefore, the basic idea of the existence of language is creation of meaning for things. This creation of meaning enables us to share with others our ideas our feelings and concepts - to communicate with others. In other way Barthes is mostly concerned with myths. He defines myths as signs that carry with them larger cultural meanings; as sophisticated systems of communication that serves the ideological aims of a dominant class.

---------------------------------------------------------
REFERENCES

Chandler, D. 2002, Semiotics: The Basics, Rutledge, London.

Culler, J. 2002, Barthes: A Very Short introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Fowler, R. 1991, Language and the News: Language and the Ideology in the Press, Rutledge, London.

Fuller, D & Waugh, P. (eds.) 1999, The Arts and Sciences of Criticism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hall, S. 2003, Representation: Cultural Representation and Signifying Practices, Sage Publications/The Open University, London.

Luitel, B.C. 2002, Representation: Revisited, SMEC, Curtin University of Technology http://au.geocities.com/bcluitel/Representation-revisited

McQuail, D. 2005, McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory, Sage Publications, London.

Ryder, M. 2002, Semiotics: Language and Culture, http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~semotics_este.htm