C-CS

Codes, Encoding, and Decoding

ABSTRACT

Codes are sometimes defined in a way that excludes signification. Eco distinguishes between codes and S-codes. There are many different types of codes. Codes have levels of signification. There are social codes that imply signification. There are also cultural codes that imply signification. Codes can be defined independently of cognition but this is not a characteristic use the term.

Codes are sometimes defined in a way that excludes signification.

Colin Cherry in his On Human Communication defines a code in relation to signs: "a code is an agreed transformation, usually one to one and reversible, by which messages may be converted from one set of signs to another" (8). For him, a sign is "any physical event used in communication" such as written marks conventionally used for words or phrases. These are distinguished from "language" which is a "way of using" sets of signs and rules about them. This definition locates a code outside of cognition as an independent system.

Signification, in C-CS, is a "use" of signs in relation to a coded sign system. The relations among signs, sign systems, and codes are variously defined. At issue in C-CS is the relationship between codes and coding, that is, the question of whether codes can be understood independently of cognition.

Eco distinguishes between codes and S-codes.

For Umberto Eco, a code is a rule coupling items from syntactic, semantic, or behavioral systems. An S-code (or code system) is the syntactic, semantic, or behavioral systems which can "subsist independently of an sort of significant or communicative purpose" ( A Theory of Semiotics, 38). For Eco S-codes are structures "(i) in which every value is established by positions and differences and (ii) which appears only when different phenomena are mutually compared with reference to the same system of relations" (38). As I understand Eco's distinction, the contrast is analogous to a telephone book whose systematic array of numbers and names become meaningful only when you need to make a phone call. Imagine reading a phone book from cover to cover. Phone books are systematic records that take on significance only when used.

Eco points out that "an S-code is usually called a 'code' but this habit relies on a rhetorical convention [a metonymical transference through which it stands for its use] that it would be wise to eliminate" (38).

In models of communication, the term "message" refers to the use of code systems through encoding or decoding. However, a confusion arises when the meaning of messages is attributed to the code system independently of cognitive activities.

There are many different types of codes.

Given the circumstance that there are many code systems, when they are used one can speak of different types of codes. Pierre Guiraud (Semiology) argues that there are three important types: social, aesthetic, and logical. Social codes (we can invoke here Eco conception of a code as a coupling rule or transformation equations) are the rules that govern relations among members of a society, e.g., men and women. Aesthetic codes are for interpreting and evaluating artifacts. Logical codes are for understanding nature and the world. These codes can be broken down into a variety of sub-codes. For example, Basil Bernstein (Class, Codes, and Control) argues that the middle classes are governed by elaborated codes and the working classes by restricted codes.

However one wishes to demarcate types of codes, all are used in communicative situations and imply signification.

Codes have levels of signification.

Arthur Asa Berger speaks of "code levels" in his Signs in Contemporary Culture (158). He writes: "One of the problems we face in dealing with codes stems from the fact that they can operate at different levels—often many different levels at the same time." (Berger 157). The levels Berger identifies are: universal, national, regional, local, individual. He offers a helpful example:

Some humor is universal; here I'm thinking of the antics of clowns and mimes which almost anyone can understand and appreciate. Other humor seems to be national, or, in other words, deeply affected by matters connected with nations, their histories and identities. Some examples are English understatement, American exuberance and overstatement (tall tales, etc.) and so on.
Then, within nations, there are other subcategories such as regional humor (Yankee, Southern), local humor (Bostonian) and individual humor (a given person's sense of humor). (157-158)

Michael Halliday's concept of linguistic registers indicates how codes are tied to situations. According to Michael Halliday,

"Types of linguistic situation differ from on another, broadly speaking, in three respects: first, what is actually taking place; secondly, who is taking part; and thirdly, what part the language is playing. These three variables, taken together, determine the range within which meanings are selected and the forms which are used for their expression. In other words, they determine the 'register.'
The notion of register is at once very simple and very powerful. It refers to the fact that the language we speak or write varies according to the type of situation. This in itself is no more than stating the obvious. What the theory of register does is to attempt to uncover the general principles which govern this variation, so that we can begin to understand what situational factors determine what linguistic features. It is a fundamental property of all language that they display variation according to use; but surprisingly little is yet known about nature of the variation involved, largely because of the difficulty of identifying the controlling factors.(Language As Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning, 31-32, emphasis mine.)

There are social codes that imply signification.

Pierre Guiraud identifies four categories of social codes in his Semiology: Protocols, rituals, fashions and games. He notes:

Society groups individuals according to the actions they undertake together. Each individual has his place and his function: each is defined in society by his family, religious and professional relations with others into which he enters. It is indispensable that these relations should be recognized and identified. Such is, as we have seen, the function of names, nicknames, insignia, signs, coats of arms and , quite particularly, clothing. Furthermore, when individuals get together with a view to some collective action their relations much be signified: who it is that commands and who obeys, who gives and who receives, who invites whom, etc. (92)

Protocols, rituals, fashions, and games provide "rules" (in Eco's sense of codes as rules) for communication and behavior in their correlative situations. To follow these "rule codes" persons must not only remember them but also apply them. This can only be accomplished through their cognitive abilities.

There are cultural codes that imply signification.

In her The Subject of Semiotics, Kaja Silverman defines a social code:

. . . a cultural code is a conceptual system which is organized around key oppositions and equations, in which a term like 'woman' is defined in opposition to a term like 'man,' and in which each term is aligned with a cluster of symbolic attributes. In the case of 'woman' those symbolic attributes might be 'emotional,' 'pliant,' 'weak,'whereas those associated with 'man' would be more likely to be 'rational,' 'firm,' and 'strong.' Cultural codes provide the basis for connotation. (36)

This is one of the code systems of which Eco speaks. To use a cultural code effectively in a communication situation, the oppositions and equations deployed must be retrieved from the memories of the communicators. The only way to use these codes is through signification.

Codes can be defined independently of cognition but this is not a characteristic use the term.

When we consider the variety of code systems and their situated cognitive uses, it is as difficult to separate them as it was for Yeats to separate the dancer from the dance.

jjs

Notes:

.In C-CS, the working definitions of code, coding, and signification are provided in the glossary. Briefly, any communication implies "a system of significations" (Eco, 32). Codes are conventionalized translation equations. Coding is the process of arranging codes so that they signify meanings to other persons. Signification is the result of the process of signifying, that is, of composing or constructing meaning.