Semiotics is the study of signs and symbols and their use. In our daily routines of communicating, even though we may not realize it, the use of language AND signs affect the way our messages are being delivered, received, and making meaning out of it.

Signs communicate ideas, attitudes, and beliefs to us. Signs that can be found in media can be used to represent and relay information to the audience. These signs can be constructed to form certain meanings. They are able to communicate certain messages.

paradigm

– the most obvious paradigm/criterion to which the the subject is associated with
– the qualities that distinguish one sign from another that give the sign meaning

syntagm

– comes after the formation of other paradigms according to the rules of langue
– anchors the meaning of individual signs (from the paradigms) by creating a context; contextualizer
– helps us to choose the appropriate paradigm of a sign, therefore prevents confusion by limiting the number of meanings

Iconic

– a sign which bears a resemblance to what it represents, can be an image, images or graphical

Index

– a sign which has a direct relationship, or causal link, to what it represents

Symbolic

– any arbitrary sign, since it can only be a sign because of the consensus about what it means

Myths

– defining occurences that associate meanings with signs through connotations

Binary Oppositions

– meanings of signs are defined through its opposing relationship with other signs

As a daughter of an OFW in Hong Kong, this documentary made me realize what it feels like to be at the same job. It made me understand more about what our OFWs experience, good or bad, and how they cope with it. Luckily, my mom has good employers and never had to struggle so much.

One thing that struck me the most while watching the documentary was when they mentioned about feeling homesick, and one of the ways they cope with it is through sending a balikbayan box, which I can relate to. My mom is fond of sending us balikbayan boxes that even include her old clothes or blankets that smell just like her. That way, we get to receive not only new clothes and shoes, but we also get to feel her love through these little things.

It cannot be denied that when two people of different cultures engage into a conversation, misunderstanding and conflict is just around the corner. Knowing that different cultures are diverse and unique from each other, it can easily be understood that way. However, this diversity cannot be the permanent excuse to the emergence of intercultural conflict.

In the rise of globalization, people are getting more exposed to other cultures and the problem of susceptibility to conflict have been eventually overcome as the concept of cultural hybridity and third space is being understood. Third spaces are new “zones of proximal development” (Vygotsky 1978: 84).

For me, the concept of third space can be likened to the space in between a venn diagram. It refers to the interstices between colliding cultures, a liminal space “which gives rise to something different, something new and unrecognizable, a new area of negotiation of meaning and representation.” In this “in-between” space, new cultural identities are formed, reformed, and constantly in a state of becoming. 

However, either with effort or without, there would still be instances that the third space turns out to be problematic thus useless, or the compatibility needed to co-create a third space cannot be found. Watch this as an example:
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-trump-s-awkward-moments-with-world-leaders-985610307860

On the first chapter of Melba Maggay’s Pahiwatig: Kagawiang pangkomunikasyon ng Filipino, she discussed 10 indigenous Filipino ways of interpersonal communication. A lot of it were very relatable, as a Filipino, I also see myself applying such ways. I learned most of it from the people surrounding me, such as my family and friends. The most common among us is the use of pagpapahiwatig. To avoid dealing with conflict between our relationships, we are fond of implicitly expressing messages-within-messages, such as being sarcastic and making inside jokes. This is possible because we have close ties and understand each other’s behaviors.

“Habang totoo na nangingibabaw ang mapagpahiwatig na pagpapahayag, may mga konteksto sa ating mga paparating na nakapangyayari ang tahasang pagpapahayag.”

Maggay (2002, p. 39)

While there is an advantage of belonging in a high-context culture (i.e., not having to explain everything every time), there are also certain drawbacks to it. There are tendencies that these behaviors turn to mannerisms that we can bring as we grow up. Such behaviors are not healthy to use at times, especially when communicating with people of different cultures, or sometimes just people with other issues, thus creating conflict from being passive-aggressive.

The communication behaviors that Maggay described can mostly be observed in oral and face-to-face interpersonal interactions. But it doesn’t stop there. With the rise of social media and other media platforms, these behaviors can also be manifested digitally.

With all the countries that colonized the Philippines before our time, they surely must play a huge role in contributing to the communication behaviors we have today. But I believe that it is what makes them uniquely Pinoy. Just as these behaviors may also be considered generally applicable to other people for reasons other than culture, it doesn’t make them exactly the same from each other. Filipinos have been and are continuing to build upon these behaviors in the Filipino context and adaptation, and as a nation with a developing culture, it is fair to claim these as ours.

Aside from Maggay, Prof. Jose Lacson also discussed Filipino communicative behaviors that are fueled by mindsets elicited from our shared culture, namely Deprivation-Deservation Syndrome, the Kulang sa Pansin Syndrome and the Quest for Ownership and Credit Seeking, Convenience Approach to Living on, Sense of Humor, and the Concept of Accountability. Both discussions show a very good understanding of where these behaviors are coming from, thus clearly providing an explanations that we can reflect upon. Here’s an excerpt from Lacson’s writing that all of us could probably agree to:

As a people, we communicate in ways which could be considered as unique and persevering to the Filipino way of doing things. It has been observed that we have multiple meanings for things and common meanings are arrived at in tacit agreement with the other, perhaps as a matter of convenience or accommodation to both parties.

References:
Maggay, M. (2002). Pahiwatig: Kagawiang pangkomunikasyon ng Filipino. Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Moghaddam and Harré (2010: 2) stated that positioning theory is about “how people use words (and discourse of all types) to locate themselves and others”. Further, that is “it is with words that we ascribe rights and claim them for ourselves and place duties on others” (p. 3).

As relatively evident in other identity theories, the society is always involved in the process of identity construction.

Positioning, per se, is really just putting yourself into position on to where you stand in social conversations. Gerard Duveen suggested that social representations include different identities which enable people to position themselves in a variety of ways in relation to the symbolic field of culture. That is, the identity you portray in specific situations with specific people.

For instance, in a conversation with your friends regarding a social issue, you take the position of being a friend, as well as taking a position on your stand on the issue (e.g., affirmative or negative). This explains the ability of the self to embody different identities in different conditions. This identity is built within the social situation, thus confirming that such situations contribute to the identity being represented.

However, positioning requires us to have a voice which would enable us to represent ourselves in the social arena. And it cannot be denied that there are a lot of marginalized groups that get their voices taken away from them as they get the least amount of chances to fight against the discrimination that they face. In the Philippines, local rice farmers suffer from earning way less than they should to be able to provide for themselves, and they have no other choice than to accept and continue this relationship with greedy traders. As they are incessantly being subject to such inequality, they are unable to have a voice that will let them express their concerns to the community and the government. As a result, they are not getting enough attention from the people and are unable to get help.

Given that, they have no means to own a position.

References:
Moghaddam, F. and Harré, R. (2010) Words, conflicts and political processes. In F. Moghaddam and R. Harré (eds) Words of Conflict, Words of War: How the language weuse in political processes sparks fighting. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

To build one’s identity is a lifetime process.

It is a lifetime process, in the same way that we engage in social interaction in our whole life. As we grow and learn to interact with others and adapt to our environment, we also, little by little, build our own versions of ourselves. Our identity is not limited to our biological determininism, rather, it is also constructed by the society that we live in. How? Through communication.

According to the Communication Theory of Identity (CTI) by Michael Hecht et. al, humans are inherently social beings whose lives revolve around communication, relationships, and communities and who operate from multiple and shifting identities. As a result, identities and identification are key processes through which people and groups orient themselves to each other and the world around them. Meaning, one’s involvement in the society through communication is vital to the process of identity building.

Further research presented the CTI view of identity as consisting of four frames: personal, enacted, relational, and communal. The personal frame encompasses what has traditionally been thought of as self and self-concept—the ways an individual conceives of self. The enacted frame is the performance or expression of identity. The relational frame refers to identities that are invested in relationships, exist in relationship to each other, and are ascribed in and through relationships. Lastly, the communal frame is composed of the identities that are characters of communities, meaning, it is held in common by groups rather than individuals. These identity frames go hand in hand with each other, as people are said to have multiple, intersecting identities.

For instance, I have my own perception of how I see myself (personal frame), which is different from how others see me based on how I act (enacted frame) with them depending on our relationships (relational frame), and my identity as part of a community such as my school.

There’s always a difference between real and online situations. Yes, online has its perks, but it does not always apply. Traditional rhetoric can be more complex than what we think of it. In attempting to use rhetoric in digital spaces, the rhetors and the audience will have to adapt to the gaps in it. But I am not saying it is impossible.

Living in a modern society, people have become more vulnerable as they have a representation of themselves in social media. They are more subject to affection on what they see, and that provided the space for online persuasion. Even without the physical appearance of the rhetor, there are other factors that allow the audience to see through the screen and recognize ethos. Hence, the rhetor is still able to make use of rhetorical strategies online.

Additionally, there is a potential to digital media to extend and transform traditional notions of rhetoric as persuasion. Meaning, the platform alone can add up to the rhetorical impact of content — computer programs can surpass the level of persuasion available in the real world as technology opens the situation to a broader audience. Digital media is getting under the spotlight and it offers more opportunities for reader participation and interactivity and achieving unity of purpose. It is new and exciting, eventually receiving more attention from the people who used to appreciate mainstream media.

Studies of the new digital media also explore some of the purposes and outcomes of communication in digital spaces such as self-expression for the purpose of exploring individual and group identities and participation and creative collaboration for the purpose of building communities of shared interest. Somehow, the way we portray ourselves in social media contributes to our whole identity.

Sherry Turkle explains the processes of identity formation as interactions among multiple versions of our online selves and between these and our real selves: “As players participate [in Multiple-User Domains, or MUDs], they become authors not only of text, but of themselves, constructing new selves through social interaction.”

Zappen, 2004

Although still different from traditional rhetoric, these attributes of digital media make rhetorical practice available in the virtual world. We are still able to express ourselves online and make an extended online identity which can be a rhetor or an audience. There are many possible activities we can do online to have a full rhetorical experience.

As the Amazon rain forest continues to be buried in its own ashes, capitalists grin ear to ear as their pockets ignite. Being in a position where I don’t experience firsthand affection from this problem, all I can ask is: “Where has humanity gone?”

People are literally overlooking the urgency in this situation — we are almost always either unaware or simply just apathetic. A lot of us only ‘care’ because we are scared of the consequences it brings. A lot of us only ‘care’ to join the bandwagon. And the sad truth is, a lot of us don’t even care. Perhaps, in their minds they always question: “why bother?”

Behind all of these are our hyprocrite selves who are mere leeches of the Earth. Even between the educated and not, there are no exceptions. Most especially the capitalists who are willing to shed the forests in exchange for the satisfaction of temporary greed with temporary wealth. TEMPORARY — we are causing permanent destruction to what we do not own in exchange for it. The ice are melting, the forests are burning, ecosystems are vanishing. Who are we to blame? What privilege do we hold that we cannot share with the future generations? Do we even think of the future?

If this continues, time will come when everything we have, we destroy. We need to be sincere and concrete with our resolutions if we care. The capitalists already have more than enough for them to dwell in their places. But even I couldn’t provide a solution to this problem.

My point? To care and do something about it. Because we should. Otherwise we would turn to the molten souls of the future.

“Don’t ever diminish the power of words. Words move hearts and hearts move limbs.”

Hamza Yusuf

Rhetoric, in its simplest form, is pertained to the art of persuasive speaking. It is basically a skill used by man to get what he wants through a potentially manipulative speech. Lloyd F. Bitzer stresses that not all persuasive discourse can be discerned as rhetorical, but rhetoric is always persuasive by nature.  He also highlighted the ground of rhetorical activity – rhetorical situation. Rhetorical situation is defined as “a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence.” Meaning, rhetoric is not one simple, general concept. It does not apply when any person at any situation is being persuaded.

Rhetoric serves a practical purpose and is meant to produce action. Before we can conclude that a certain situation is rhetoric, Bitzer specified three constituents of a rhetorical situation: exigence, the audience, and the constraints. An exigence is a state of urgency which needs to be addressed immediately as it is a form of deficiency. In this case, an exigence is open to modification and thus it requires human intervention. An exigence is rhetorical when it is capable of positive modification and when positive modification requires discourse or can be assisted by discourse. In a rhetorical situation, it is the exigence which determines and controls the function of the rhetor and the audience. The second constituent is the audience. It always follows that rhetoric requires an audience, since they are the ones being targeted by the speech and the possibility of change is null without the contribution of the audience. A rhetorical audience consists only of those persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change. Lastly, every rhetorical situation contains constraints which influence the rhetor and can be brought to bear upon the audience. Constraints are parts of the situation because they drive the minds of the audience to act upon the exigence. Standard sources of constraint include beliefs, attitudes, documents, facts, traditions, images, interests, motives and the like.
In order for a situation to be considered rhetorical, it must have (1) an exigence which lends itself to modification through discourse; (2) an audience capable of being influenced by the discourse and of being mediators of change; and (3) a set of constraints that limit the decisions and actions of the audience in modifying the exigence.
 

In order for a situation to be considered rhetorical, it must have (1) an exigence which lends itself to modification through discourse; (2) an audience capable of being influenced by the discourse and of being mediators of change; and (3) a set of constraints that limit the decisions and actions of the audience in modifying the exigence.

The different aspects of a rhetorical situation:

1. Rhetorical discourse is called into existence by situation; the situation which the rhetor perceives amounts to an. invitation to create and present discourse. A speech will be rhetorical when it is a response to the kind of situation which is rhetorical.
2. It invites a fitting response, a response that fits the situation.
3. The situation must somehow prescribe the response which fits. A situation which is strong and clear dictates the purpose, theme, matter, and style of the response.
4. The situation is objective, publicly observable, and historic means that it is real or genuine — that our critical examination will certify its existence. The rhetorical situation as real is to be distinguished also from a fictive rhetorical situation.
5. Rhetorical situations exhibit structures which are simple or complex, and more or less organized. Situations may become weakened in structure due to complexity or disconnectedness.
6. Rhetorical situations come into existence, then either mature or decay or mature and persist — conceivably some persist indefinitely. Every rhetorical situation in principle evolves to a propitious moment for the fitting rhetorical response.