Encoding / Decoding(编码/解码)

Elysium
·
(修改过)
·
IPFS
·
翻遍简中互联网也没发现传播学非常经典的文献霍尔的《编码/解码》的翻译,最沾边的就是一些论文梳理,因为在本人reading material里面出现频率过高,就试着翻译一下(机翻+自己润色),主要供记录和参考,肯定有很多疏漏,如果有人能发现跟我说就太好啦。

Traditionally, mass-communications research has conceptualized the process of communication in terms of a circulation circuit or loop. This model has been criticized for its linearity—sender/message/receiver—for its concentration on the level of message exchange and for the absence of a structured conception of the different moments as a complex structure of relations. But it is also possible (and useful) to think of this process in terms of a structure produced and sustained through the articulation of linked but distinctive moments—production, circulation, distribution/consumption, reproduction. This would be to think of the process as a ‘complex structure in dominance’, sustained through the articulation of connected practices, each of which, however, retains its distinctiveness and has its own specific modality, its own forms and conditions of existence. This second approach, homologous to that which forms the skeleton of commodity production offered in Marx’s Grundrisse and in Capital, has the added advantage of bringing out more sharply how a continuous circuit—production-distribution-production—can be sustained through a ‘passage of forms’. It also highlights the specificity of the forms in which the product of the process ‘appears’ in each moment, and thus what distinguishes discursive ‘production’ from other types of production in our society and in modern media systems.

从传统意义上来说,大众传播研究将传播过程描述为循环回路或循环。 该模型因为以下几点受到批评:线性(发送者-消息-接收者,这里指的是拉斯韦尔的5W模式);专注于消息交换的级别;缺乏将不同时刻作为复杂关系结构的结构化概念(动态性)。 但也有可能(也很有用)从一个结构的角度来思考传播过程,这个过程是通过连接但独特的时刻(生产、流通、分配/消费、再生产的衔接)来产生和维持的。这就是将这一过程视为一种“占主导地位的复杂结构”,通过相关实践的表达来维持,然而,每一种实践都保持其独特性,并具有自己特定的模式、自己的形式和存在条件。 这第二种路径与构成马克思的《政治经济学批判大纲》和《资本论》中提供的商品生产流程的框架类似。除此之外,这一过程可以更清楚地表明连续的循环(生产-分配生产)是如何通过“形式的传递”得以维持,并且能强调这个过程的产品在每个时刻 "出现 "的形式的特殊性,从而使话语 “生产”与我们社会和现代媒体系统中的其他类型的生产相区别。

The ‘object’ of these practices is meanings and messages in the form of signvehicles of a specific kind organized, like any form of communication or language, through the operation of codes within the syntagmatic chain of a discourse. The apparatuses, relations and practices of production thus issue, at a certain moment (the moment of ‘production/circulation’) in the form of symbolic vehicles constituted within the rules of ‘language’. It is in this discursive form that the circulation of the ‘product’ takes place. The process thus requires, at the production end, its material instruments—its ‘means’—as well as its own sets of social (production) relations—the organization and combination of practices within media apparatuses. But it is in the discursive form that the circulation of the product takes place, as well as its distribution to different audiences. Once accomplished, the discourse must then be translated—transformed, again—into social practices if the circuit is to be both completed and effective. If no ‘meaning’ is taken, there can be no ‘consumption’. If the meaning is not articulated in practice, it has no effect. The value of this approach is that while each of the moments, in articulation, is necessary to the circuit as a whole, no one moment can fully guarantee the next moment with which it is articulated. Since each has its specific modality and conditions of existence, each can constitute its own break or interruption of the ‘passage of forms’ on whose continuity the flow of effective production (that is, ‘reproduction’) depends.

这些实践的“对象”是以特定类型的符号载体形式存在的意义和信息,就像任何形式的交流或语言一样,通过话语的组合链中的代码来操作组织。 因此,生产的装置、关系和实践在特定时刻(比如“生产/流通”的时刻)以在“语言”规则内构成的符号载体的形式出现。正是在这种话语形式下,“产品”的流通得以发生,因此,在生产端,这个过程需要它的物质工具——它的“手段”——以及它自己的一系列社会(生产)关系——媒体机构内实践的组织和组合。 但同时需要注意的是,产品的流通以及它向不同受众的分发都是在这样的话语形式下发生的。 一旦完成,如果要使循环既完整又有效,则必须将话语再次转化为社会实践。 如果没有创造“意义”,就谈不上“消费”。 如果在实践中没有明确表达意思,它就没有作用。 这种方法的价值在于,虽然每一个时刻在衔接上对整个传播过程都是必要的,但没有一个时刻可以完全保证存在与之衔接的下一个时刻。由于每个时刻都有其特定的存在方式和条件,每个时刻都可以构成其自身的中断或 "形式通道 "的中断,而有效生产的流动(即 “再生产”)则依赖于这种连续性。

Thus while in no way wanting to limit research to ‘following only those leads which emerge from content analysis’, we must recognize that the discursive form of the message has a privileged position in the communicative exchange (from the viewpoint of circulation) and that the moments of ‘encoding’ and ‘decoding’, though only ‘relatively autonomous’ in relation to the communicative process as a whole, are determinate moments. A ‘raw’ historical event cannot, in that form, be transmitted by, say, a television newscast. Events can only be signified within the aural-visual forms of the televisual discourse. In the moment when a historical event passes under the sign of discourse, it is subject to all the complex formal ‘rules’ by which language signifies. To put it paradoxically, the event must become a ‘story’ before it can become a communicative event. In that moment the formal sub-rules of discourse are ‘in dominance’, without, of course, subordinating out of existence the historical event so signified, the social relations in which the rules are set to work or the social and political consequences of the event having been signified in this way.The ‘message form’ is the necessary ‘form of appearance’ of the event in its passage from source to the receiver. Thus the transposition into and out of the ‘message form’ (or the mode of symbolic exchange) is not a random ‘moment’, which we can take up or ignore at our convenience. The ‘message form’ is a determinate moment; though, at another level, it comprises the surface movements of the communications system only and requires, at another stage, to be integrated into the social relations of the communication process as a whole, of which it forms only a part.

因此,尽管决不想将研究限制在“仅遵循内容分析中出现的那些线索”的范围内,但我们必须认识到,信息的话语形式在交际交流中具有特权地位(从传播的角度来看),同时,尽管对于整体传播过程来说, “编码”和“解码”只是“相对自主的”,但它们却是确定的时刻。 一个“原始”历史事件不可能通过电视新闻广播来传播,只能在电视话语的视听形式中被符号化。 当历史事件通过话语被符号化后,受制于语言符号的所有复杂的形式 "规则"。矛盾的是,事件必须先成为“故事”,然后才能成为交流性事件。在那一刻,话语的形式的子规则“处于支配地位”,当然,这并不意味着被符号化的历史事件、规则在其中发挥作用的社会关系或以这种方式符号化的事件的社会和政治后果会被剥夺存在的权利。“信息形式”是事件从源头到接受者的过程中必要的 "外观形式"。因此,转入和转出 "信息形式"(或符号交换的模式)并不是一个随机的 "时刻",我们可以在方便的时候接受或忽略它。“信息形式”是一个确定的时刻,尽管在另一个层面上,它只包括通信系统的表面运动,并且在另一个阶段作为一部分需要被整合到整个通信过程的社会关系中。

From this general perspective, we may crudely characterize the television communicative process as follows. The institutional structures of broadcasting, with their practices and networks of production, their organized relations and technical infrastructures, are required to produce a programme. Using the analogy of Capital, this is the ‘labour process’ in the discursive mode. Production, here, constructs the message. In one sense, then, the circuit begins here. Of course, the production process is not without its ‘discursive’ aspect: it, too, is framed throughout by meanings and ideas: knowledge-in-use concerning the routines of production, historically defined technical skills, professional ideologies, institutional knowledge, definitions and assumptions, assumptions about the audience and so on frame the constitution of the programme through this production structure. Further, though the production structures of television originate the television discourse, they do not constitute a closed system. They draw topics, treatments, agendas, events, personnel, images of the audience, ‘definitions of the situation’ from other sources and other discursive formations within the wider socio-cultural and political structure of which they are a differentiated part. Philip Elliott has expressed this point succinctly, within a more traditional framework, in his discussion of the way in which the audience is both the ‘source’ and the ‘receiver’ of the television message. Thus—to borrow Marx’s terms—circulation and reception are, indeed, ‘moments’ of the production process in television and are reincorporated, via a number of skewed and structured ‘feedbacks’, into the production process itself. The consumption or reception of the television message is thus also itself a ‘moment’ of the production process in its larger sense, though the latter is ‘predominant’ because it is the ‘point of departure for the realization’ of the message. Production and reception of the television message are not, therefore, identical, but they are related: they are differentiated moments within the totality formed by the social relations of the communicative process as a whole.

从一般角度来看,我们可以粗略地描述电视传播过程如下。 广播的体制结构,以及它们的实践和生产网络,它们的组织关系和技术基础结构,都是制作节目所需要的。用资本论来类比,这就是话语模式下的“劳动过程”。 在这里,生产构建了消息。 那么,从某种意义上说,传播过程从这里开始。 当然,生产过程并非没有它的“话语”方面:它也始终被意义和思想所框定,比如关于制作常规的知识、历史上定义的技术技能、专业意识形态、制度知识、定义和假设,关于观众的假设等,它们都通过这种生产结构来构成节目。 此外,虽然电视的生产结构起源于电视话语,但它们并不构成一个封闭的系统。 它们从其他来源和更广泛的社会文化和政治结构中的其他话语结构中提取主题、处理方法、议程、事件、人员、观众形象、“情景的定义”,是这些话语结构中的一个不同部分。 菲利普·埃·利奥特 (Philip Elliott) 在他对观众既是电视信息的“来源”又是“接收者”的方式的讨论中,在一个更传统的框架内简洁地表达了这一点。 因此——借用马克思的术语——传播和接收确实是电视制作过程中的“时刻”,并通过一些偏态的和结构化的“反馈”重新融入制作过程本身。因此,电视节目的消费或接收本身也是生产过程的一个“时刻”,尽管后者是“主导的”,因为它是实现消息的“出发点”。因此,电视信息的生产和接收并不完全相同,但它们是相关的:它们是由整个传播过程的社会关系形成的整体中的不同时刻。

At a certain point, however, the broadcasting structures must yield encoded messages in the form of a meaningful discourse. The institution-societal relations of production must pass under the discursive rules of language for its product to be ‘realized’. This initiates a further differentiated moment, in which the formal rules of discourse and language are in dominance. Before this message can have an ‘effect’ (however defined), satisfy a ‘need’ or be put to a ‘use’, it must first be appropriated as a meaningful discourse and be meaningfully decoded. It is this set of decoded meanings which ‘have an effect’, influence, entertain, instruct or persuade, with very complex perceptual, cognitive, emotional, ideological or behavioural consequences. In a ‘determinate’ moment the structure employs a code and yields a ‘message’: at another determinate moment the ‘message’, via its decodings, issues into the structure of social practices. We are now fully aware that this re-entry into the practices of audience reception and ‘use’ cannot be understood in simple behavioural terms. The typical processes identified in positivistic research on isolated elements—effects, uses, ‘gratifications’—are themselves framed by structures of understanding, as well as being produced by social and economic relations, which shape their ‘realization’ at the reception end of the chain and which permit the meanings signified in the discourse to be transposed into practice or consciousness (to acquire social use value or political effectivity).

然而,在一些时刻,广播结构必须以有意义的话语形式产生编码信息。 机构与社会的生产关系必须在语言的话语规则下通过,其产品才能被“实现”。 这引发了进一步分化的时刻,其中话语和语言的正式形式规则处于主导地位。 在这条消息能够产生“效果”(无论如何定义)、满足“需要”或被“使用”之前,它必须首先被用作有意义的话语并被有意义地解码。 正是这组经过解码的含义“产生了效果”、影响、娱乐、指导或说服,具有非常复杂的感知、认知、情感、意识形态或行为后果。 在一个“确定的”时刻,结构使用代码并产生“信息”:在另一个确定的时刻,“信息”通过其解码,进入社会实践的结构。 我们现在充分意识到,不能用简单的行为术语来理解这种重新进入观众接受和“使用”的做法。 在实证主义研究中确定的孤立元素“效果、使用、满足”中,它们本身受到理解结构的制约,并由社会和经济关系产生,这些关系塑造了它们【指孤立元素们】在接收端的“实现”,并允许话语中的符号意义被转换为实践或意识(获得社会使用价值或政治效果)。

Clearly, what we have labelled in the diagram ‘meaning structures 1’ and ‘meaning structures 2’ may not be the same. They do not constitute an ‘immediate identity’. The codes of encoding and decoding may not be perfectly symmetrical. The degrees of symmetry—that is, the degrees of ‘understanding’ and ‘misunderstanding’ in the communicative exchange—depend on the degrees of symmetry/asymmetry (relations of equivalence) established between the positions of the ‘personifications’, encoder-producer and decoder-receiver. But this in turn depends on the degrees of identity/non-identity between the codes which perfectly or imperfectly transmit, interrupt or systematically distort what has been transmitted. The lack of fit between the codes has a great deal to do with the structural differences of relation and position between broadcasters and audiences, but it also has something to do with the asymmetry between the codes of ‘source’ and ‘receiver’ at the moment of transformation into and out of the discursive form. What are called ‘distortions’ or ‘misunderstandings’ arise precisely from the lack of equivalence between the two sides in the communicative exchange. Once again, this defines the ‘relative autonomy’, but ‘determinateness’, of the entry and exit of the message in its discursive moments.

显然,我们在图中标记的“意义结构一”和“意义结构二”可能并不相同。 意义结构不构成“直接的身份”,编码和解码的代码可能不是完全对称的。 对称的程度--即交际交流中的 "理解 "和 "误解 "的程度--取决于在 "拟人化"、编码者/生产者和解码者/接受者的位置之间建立的对称/不对称程度(等价关系)。但同时取决于这些代码(即语言)是否完美或不完美地传递、中断或系统地扭曲了所传递的内容,从而造成了代码之间的同一和差别。编码之间的不一致与广播者和观众之间的关系和地位的结构性差异有很大关系,但它也与“信息源”和“接受者”的编码在转化为话语形式的时刻的不对称性有关。所谓的“扭曲”或“误解”,正是因为交际交流中双方缺乏对等性。这再次确定了信息在其话语时刻的进入和退出的“相对自主性”,但也是“决定性”的。

The application of this rudimentary paradigm has already begun to transform our understanding of the older term, television ‘content’. We are just beginning to see how it might also transform our understanding of audience reception, ‘reading’ and response as well. Beginnings and endings have been announced in communications research before, so we must be cautious. But there seems some ground for thinking that a new and exciting phase in so-called audience research, of a quite new kind, may be opening up. At either end of the communicative chain the use of the semiotic paradigm promises to dispel the lingering behaviorism which has dogged mass-media research for so long, especially in its approach to content. Though we know the television programme is not a behavioral input, like a tap on the knee cap, it seems to have been almost impossible for traditional researchers to conceptualize the communicative process without lapsing into one or other variant of low-flying behaviourism. We know, as Gerbner has remarked, that representations of violence on the TV screen ‘are not violence but messages about violence’: but we have continued to research the question of violence, for example, as if we were unable to comprehend this epistemological distinction.

这种基本范式的应用已经开始改变我们对旧术语“电视内容”的理解,我们才刚刚开始看到它如何改变我们对观众接受、观看和反应的理解。在传播研究中,开头和结尾曾经被宣布过【即5W模式的头和尾】,所以我们必须谨慎行事。但是,我们似乎有理由认为,所谓的受众研究在一个新的和令人兴奋的阶段,一个相当新的类型可能正在打开。在传播链的任意一个节点上,符号学范式的使用都有望消除长期以来困扰大众传媒研究的挥之不去的行为主义,尤其是在其内容方面。尽管我们知道电视节目不是一种行为输入,就像拍打膝盖盖一样,但对于传统的研究者来说,要想在概念化传播过程中不陷入低级行为主义的某种变体,似乎是不可能的。我们知道,正如Gerbner(格伯纳,电视暴力研究的重要代表人之一)所说,电视屏幕上的暴力表现 "不是暴力,而是关于暴力的信息"(一暗含信息是中性的可能,二暗含受众对其重新解读的可能):但我们在研究暴力问题过程中,好像始终无法理解这种认识论上的区别。

The televisual sign is a complex one. It is itself constituted by the combination of two types of discourse, visual and aural. Moreover, it is an iconic sign, in Peirce’s terminology, because ‘it possesses some of the properties of the thing represented’. This is a point which has led to a great deal of confusion and has provided the site of intense controversy in the study of visual language. Since the visual discourse translates a three-dimensional world into two-dimensional planes, it cannot, of course, be the referent or concept it signifies. The dog in the film can bark but it cannot bite! Reality exists outside language, but it is constantly mediated by and through language: and what we can know and say has to be produced in and through discourse. Discursive ‘knowledge’ is the product not of the transparent representation of the ‘real’ in language but of the articulation of language on real relations and conditions. Thus there is no intelligible discourse without the operation of a code. Iconic signs are therefore coded signs too—even if the codes here work differently from those of other signs. There is no degree zero in language. Naturalism and ‘realism’— the apparent fidelity of the representation to the thing or concept represented—is the result, the effect, of a certain specific articulation of language on the ‘real’. It is the result of a discursive practice.

电视是复杂的符号。它本身是由视觉和听觉这两种话语的组合构成的。此外,用皮尔斯的术语来说,它是一个图像(iconic)符号,因为“它拥有所代表事物的某些属性”。由于视觉话语将三维世界转化为二维平面,视觉符号当然不可能是它所象征的指称或概念。电影中的狗可以吠叫,但不能咬人!现实存在于语言之外,但它不断地被语言所呈现(mediated),并通过语言来呈现:而我们所能知道和说出的东西必须在话语中产生。话语的“知识”不是语言对“真实”的透明表征的产物,而是语言对真实关系和条件的咬合(articulation)的产物。因此,没有代码的运作,就没有可理解的话语。因此,图像符号也是编码符号--即使这里的编码与其他符号的编码运作方式不同。语言中不存在零度(可能是指基准线/参考线)。自然主义和 "现实主义"——表征对所代表的事物或概念的明显的精确性,是语言对“真实”的某种特定表述的结果和效果。它是一种话语实践的结果。

Certain codes may, of course, be so widely distributed in a specific language community or culture, and be learned at so early an age, that they appear not to be constructed—the effect of an articulation between sign and referent—but to be ‘naturally’ given. Simple visual signs appear to have achieved a ‘nearuniversality’ in this sense: though evidence remains that even apparently ‘natural’ visual codes are culture-specific. However, this does not mean that no codes have intervened; rather, that the codes have been profoundly naturalized. The operation of naturalized codes reveals not the transparency and ‘naturalness’ of language but the depth, the habituation and the near-universality of the codes in use. They produce apparently ‘natural’ recognitions. This has the (ideological) effect of concealing the practices of coding which are present. But we must not be fooled by appearances. Actually, what naturalized codes demonstrate is the degree of habituation produced when there is a fundamental alignment and reciprocity—an achieved equivalence— between the encoding and decoding sides of an exchange of meanings. The functioning of the codes on the decoding side will frequently assume the status of naturalized perceptions. This leads us to think that the visual sign for ‘cow’ actually is (rather than represents) the animal, cow. But if we think of the visual representation of a cow in a manual on animal husbandry—and, even more, of the linguistic sign ‘cow’—we can see that both, in different degrees, are arbitrary with respect to the concept of the animal they represent. The articulation of an arbitrary sign— whether visual or verbal—with the concept of a referent is the product not of nature but of convention, and the conventionalism of discourses requires the intervention, the support, of codes. Thus Eco has argued that iconic signs ‘look like objects in the real world because they reproduce the conditions (that is, the codes) of perception in the viewer’. These ‘conditions of perception’ are, however, the result of a highly coded, even if virtually unconscious, set of operations— decodings. This is as true of the photographic or televisual image as it is of any other sign. Iconic signs are, however, particularly vulnerable to being ‘read’ as natural because visual codes of perception are very widely distributed and because this type of sign is less arbitrary than a linguistic sign: the linguistic sign, ‘cow’ possesses none of the properties of the thing represented, whereas the visual sign appears to possess some of those properties.

当然,某些代码可能在一个特定的语言社区或文化中广泛分布,并在很小的时候就被学习了,以至于它们似乎不是被构建的,而像是被“自然”给予的,这就是符号和所指之间的咬合效果。在这个意义上,简单的视觉符号似乎已经实现了 "近乎普遍性(universality)":尽管仍有证据表明,即使是明显“自然的”视觉代码也是有文化特性(specific)的。然而,这并不意味着没有代码的介入;相反,这些编码已经被深刻地自然化了。自然化的代码的运作揭示的不是语言的透明度和“自然性”,而是使用中的代码的深度、习惯性和接近普遍性。它们产生了明显“自然的”认识。这具有掩盖存在的编码实践的(意识形态)效果。但我们不能被表象所迷惑。实际上,自然化的编码所展示的是当编码和解码双方在意义交流中存在基本的一致性和互惠性以及实现的等同性时产生的习惯化程度(即双方都能接受的交流方式)。代码在解码端的功能将经常呈现出自然化感知(类似直觉、第一反应)的状态。这使我们认为,“牛”的视觉符号实际上是(而不是代表)牛这种动物。但是,如果我们考虑一下动物饲养手册中牛的视觉表现,甚至考虑一下语言符号 "牛",我们就会发现,两者在不同程度上对它们所代表的动物的概念都是任意的。一个任意的符号--无论是视觉的还是语言的--与指称物的概念的衔接不是自然的产物,而是惯例的产物,而话语的惯例主义需要代码的干预和支持。因此,Eco认为图像符号 "看起来像现实世界中的物体,因为它们再现了观看者的感知条件(也就是代码)"。对于摄影或电视图像来说,这一点与任何其他符号一样真实。然而,图像符号特别容易被“读”成自然的,因为感知的视觉编码分布非常广泛,而且这种类型的符号比语言符号更不随意。在语言符号中,"牛 "不具备所代表事物的属性,视觉符号似乎具备其中的一些属性。

This may help us to clarify a confusion in current linguistic theory and to define precisely how some key terms are being used in this article. Linguistic theory frequently employs the distinction ‘denotation’ and ‘connotation’. The term ‘denotation’ is widely equated with the literal meaning of a sign: because this literal meaning is almost universally recognized, especially when visual discourse is being employed, ‘denotation’ has often been confused with a literal transcription of ‘reality’ in language—and thus with a ‘natural sign’, one produced without the intervention of a code. ‘Connotation’, on the other hand, is employed simply to refer to less fixed and therefore more conventionalized and changeable, associative meanings, which clearly vary from instance to instance and therefore must depend on the intervention of codes.

这可能有助于我们澄清当前语言学理论中的一个困惑,并准确定义本文中一些关键术语的使用方式。语言学理论经常使用“外延”和“内涵”的区别。术语“外延”被广泛地等同于符号的字面意义:因为这种字面意义几乎被普遍认可,特别是当视觉话语被采用时,“外延”经常被混淆为语言中“现实”的字面转录,因此也被混淆为'自然符号',一个没有代码干预的符号。另一方面,“内涵”被简单地用来指代不太固定的、因此更常规化的、可改变的、关联性的意义,这些意义显然因实例而异,因此必须依赖于代码的干预。

We do not use the distinction—denotation/connotation—in this way. From our point of view, the distinction is an analytic one only. It is useful, in analysis, to be able to apply a rough rule of thumb which distinguishes those aspects of a sign which appear to be taken, in any language community at any point in time, as its ‘literal’ meaning (denotation) from the more associative meanings for the sign which it is possible to generate (connotation). But analytic distinctions must not be confused with distinctions in the real world. There will be very few instances in which signs organized in a discourse signify only their ‘literal’ (that is, near-universally consensualized) meaning. In actual discourse most signs will combine both the denotative and the connotative aspects (as redefined above). It may, then, be asked why we retain the distinction at all. It is largely a matter of analytic value. It is because signs appear to acquire their full ideological value— appear to be open to articulation with wider ideological discourses and meanings —at the level of their ‘associative’ meanings (that is, at the connotative level)— for here ‘meanings’ are not apparently fixed in natural perception (that is, they are not fully naturalized), and their fluidity of meaning and association can be more fully exploited and transformed. So it is at the connotative level of the sign that situational ideologies alter and transform signification. At this level we can see more clearly the active intervention of ideologies in and on discourse: here, the sign is open to new accentuations and, in Vološinov’s terms, enters fully into the struggle over meanings—the class struggle in language. This does not mean that the denotative or ‘literal’ meaning is outside ideology. Indeed, we could say that its ideological value is strongly fixed—because it has become so fully universal and ‘natural’. The terms ‘denotation’ and ‘connotation’, then, are merely useful analytic tools for distinguishing, in particular contexts, between not the presence/absence of ideology in language but the different levels at which ideologies and discourses intersect.

我们不以这种方式使用区别外延与内涵。 从我们的观点来看,这种区分只是一种分析性的区分。在语言分析中,能够应用一个粗略的经验法区分一个符号的哪些方面被视为其“字面”含义(指称),哪些方面是可以生成更具联想性的含义(内涵),是非常有用的。但是,分析性的区别不能与现实世界中的区别相混淆。在话语中组织起来的符号只表示其“字面”(即接近普遍同意的)意义的情况非常少。在实际的话语中,大多数符号将结合外延和内涵两个方面(如上面重新定义的)。那么,人们可能会问,为什么我们要保留这种区分。这主要是一个分析价值的问题,因为符号在其“联想”意义的层面上(即在内涵层面上)似乎获得了它们的全部意识形态价值,似乎可以说与更广泛的意识形态话语和意义相衔接。因为在这里,"意义 "在自然感知中显然不是固定的(也就是说,它们没有完全自然化),其意义和联想的流动性可以被更充分地利用和转化。在这个层面上,我们可以更清楚地看到意识形态对话语的主动干预:在这里,符号对新的强调(accentuations)开放,用Vološinov的话说,完全被卷入到意义争斗之中,尤其是语言的阶级斗争。事实上,我们可以说,符号的意识形态价值是强烈固定的,因为它已经变得如此完全普遍和“自然”。那么,“外延”和“内涵”这两个词只是有用的分析工具,在特定的语境中,不是区分意识形态在语言中的存在/不存在,而是区分意识形态和话语交织的不同层次。那么,术语“外延”和“内涵”仅仅是有用的在特定情境中用于区分不同层次的意识形态和话语交汇的分析工具,而不是简单地表明语言中意识形态的存在或不存在。

The level of connotation of the visual sign, of its contextual reference and positioning in different discursive fields of meaning and association, is the point where already coded signs intersect with the deep semantic codes of a culture and take on additional, more active ideological dimensions. We might take an example from advertising discourse. Here, too, there is no ‘purely denotative’, and certainly no ‘natural’, representation. Every visual sign in advertising connotes a quality, situation, value or inference, which is present as an implication or implied meaning, depending on the connotational positioning. In Barthes’s example, the sweater always signifies a ‘warm garment’ (denotation) and thus the activity/value of ‘keeping warm’. But it is also possible, at its more connotative levels, to signify ‘the coming of winter’ or ‘a cold day’. And, in the specialized sub-codes of fashion, sweater may also connote a fashionable style of haute couture or, alternatively, an informal style of dress. But set against the right visual background and positioned by the romantic sub-code, it may connote ‘long autumn walk in the woods’. Codes of this order clearly contract relations for the sign with the wider universe of ideologies in a society. These codes are the means by which power and ideology are made to signify in particular discourses. They refer signs to the ‘maps of meaning’ into which any culture is classified; and those ‘maps of social reality’ have the whole range of social meanings, practices, and usages, power and interest ‘written in’ to them. The connotative levels of signifiers, Barthes remarked, ‘have a close communication with culture, knowledge, history, and it is through them, so to speak, that the environmental world invades the linguistic and semantic system. They are, if you like, the fragments of ideology’.

视觉符号的内涵层次,包括它在不同意义和联想的话语领域中的语境参考和定位,是编码符号与文化的深层语义代码交汇的地方,并被赋予了更多更活跃的意识形态维度。我们可以举一个广告话语的例子,在这里,没有“纯粹的外延”,当然也没有“自然”(仿佛与生俱来的固有品质)的表述。广告中的每一个视觉符号都意味着一种质量、情况、价值或推论,它取决于内涵所在的位置,作为一种暗示或隐含的意义而存在。在罗兰·巴特的例子中,毛衣总是象征着一件“温暖的衣服”(外延),从而象征着 “保暖”的活动/价值。但在其更多的内涵层面上,它也有可能象征着“冬天的到来”或“寒冷的日子”。而且,在时尚的特定代码中,毛衣也可能意味着一种高级时装的时尚风格,或者,一种非正式的服饰风格。但是,在恰当的视觉背景下,在浪漫的代码的定位下,它可能意味着“秋天在森林里散步”。 这种秩序的代码明确地将符号与社会中更广泛的意识形态的关系联系起来,这些代码是权力和意识形态在特定话语中被制成符号的手段。它们将符号指向任何文化都被归入其中的“意义地图”,而这些“社会现实的地图”又包括了各种社会意义、社会实践、使用方法、权力和利益。巴特说,符号的内涵层面“与文化、知识、历史有着密切的交流,可以说,环境世界正是通过它们侵入了语言和语义系统。你可以说它们正是意识形态的碎片"。

The so-called denotative level of the televisual sign is fixed by certain, very complex (but limited or ‘closed’) codes. But its connotative level, though also bounded, is more open, subject to more active transformations, which exploit its polysemic values. Any such already constituted sign is potentially transformable into more than one connotative configuration. Polysemy must not, however, be confused with pluralism. Connotative codes are not equal among themselves. Any society / culture tends, with varying degrees of closure, to impose its classifications of the social and cultural and political world. These constitute a dominant cultural order, though it is neither univocal nor uncontested. This question of the ‘structure of discourses in dominance’ is a crucial point. The different areas of social life appear to be mapped out into discursive domains, hierarchically organized into dominant or preferred meanings. New, problematic or troubling events, which breach our expectancies and run counter to our ‘common-sense constructs’, to our ‘taken-for-granted’ knowledge of social structures, must be assigned to their discursive domains before they can be said to ‘make sense’. The most common way of ‘mapping’ them is to assign the new to some domain or other of the existing ‘maps of problematic social reality’. We say dominant, not ‘determined’, because it is always possible to order, classify, assign and decode an event within more than one ‘mapping’. But we say ‘dominant’ because there exists a pattern of ‘preferred readings’; and these both have the institutional/political/ideological order imprinted in them and have themselves become institutionalized. The domains of ‘preferred meanings’ have the whole social order embedded in them as a set of meanings, practices and beliefs: the everyday knowledge of social structures, of ‘how things work for all practical purposes in this culture’, the rank order of power and interest and the structure of legitimations, limits and sanctions. Thus to clarify a ‘misunderstanding’ at the connotative level, we must refer, through the codes, to the orders of social life, of economic and political power and of ideology. Further, since these mappings are ‘structured in dominance’ but not closed, the communicative process consists not in the unproblematic assignment of every visual item to its given position within a set of prearranged codes, but of performative rules—rules of competence and use, of logics-in-use—which seek actively to enforce or pre-fer one semantic domain over another and rule items into and out of their appropriate meaning-sets. Formal semiology has too often neglected this practice of interpretative work, though this constitutes, in fact, the real relations of broadcast practices in television.

所谓电视符号的外延(detonation,中文中用外延层面多少是有点奇怪,但是为了与前文保持统一这里仍然如此翻译)层面是由某些非常复杂(但有限或“封闭”)的代码固定的。电视符号的内涵层面,虽然也是有界限的,但更加开放,也能利用多义性的价值受到更积极的改造,任何这样已经构成的符号都有可能转化为一个以上的内涵配置。然而,多义性决不能与多元性相混淆。内涵代码之间是不平等的。任何社会 / 文化都倾向于以不同程度的封闭性将其对社会、文化和政治世界的分类强加于人,这些构成了一个主导的文化秩序,尽管它既不是明确的也不是无争议的。这个“支配性话语的结构”的问题是一个关键点。社会生活的不同领域似乎被可以被映射到话语领域,并且分等级地组织成主导或偏好的意义。新的、有问题的或令人不安的事件,打破了我们的期望,与我们的“常识构造”和我们对社会结构的“想当然”的知识背道而驰,在它们被说成 "有意义 "之前,必须被分配到它们的既有的合理的话语体系(discursive domains)中。对它们进行“映射”的最常见方式是将新的东西分配到现有的“有问题的社会现实地图”的某个领域。我们说主导的,而不是“决定性的”,因为总是有可能在不止一个“映射”中对一个事件进行排序、分类、分配和解码。但我们之所以说“主导”,是因为存在着一种“首选解读”的模式,而这些都有制度/政治/意识形态秩序的印记,并且本身已经制度化了。“首选意义(preferred meanings)”的领域将整个社会秩序作为一组意义、实践和信仰嵌入其中,包括关于社会结构的日常知识、关于“在这种文化中事情是如何实际运作的”、权力和利益的等级秩序以及合法性、限度和制裁的结构。因此,要在内涵层面澄清一个“误解”,我们必须通过代码来参考社会生活、经济和政治权力以及意识形态的秩序。此外,虽然这些映射是“结构化的支配”,但不是封闭的,因此在传播过程中并不是将每个视觉元素都毫无问题地分配到预先设定的代码集合中的特定位置,而是通过表演性的规则、能力和使用的规则以及使用的逻辑(即理解代码及代码使用的基础逻辑),积极地考虑应该将哪些代码的含义率先强化或优化,并确定哪些元素属于对应的意义集合。形式符号学常常忽略了这种解释工作的实践,尽管这实际上构成了电视广播实践的真正关系。

In speaking of dominant meanings, then, we are not talking about a one-sided process which governs how all events will be signified. It consists of the ‘work’ required to enforce, win plausibility for and command as legitimate a decoding of the event within the limit of dominant definitions in which it has been connotatively signified. Terni has remarked:

By the word reading we mean not only the capacity to identify and decode a certain number of signs, but also the subjective capacity to put them into a creative relation between themselves and with other signs: a capacity which is, by itself, the condition for a complete awareness of one’s total environment.

那么,在谈到支配性意义时,我们并不是在谈论一个支配所有事件如何被符号化的片面过程。它包括在支配性定义的范围内强制执行以及为其赢得合理性并要求对事件进行合法解码所需的“工作”,在这种情况下,这些时间已经被隐晦地符号化(connotatively signified)。泰尔尼评论道:

“ 通过阅读这个词,我们不仅指的是识别和解码一定数量的符号的能力,而且也指的是将这些符号置于它们之间以及与其他符号之间的创造性关系中的主观能力,这种能力本身就是对一个人的全部环境进行完整认识的条件。”

Our quarrel here is with the notion of ‘subjective capacity’, as if the referent of a televisional discourse were an objective fact but the interpretative level were an individualized and private matter. Quite the opposite seems to be the case. The televisual practice takes ‘objective’ (that is, systemic) responsibility precisely for the relations which disparate signs contract with one another in any discursive instance, and thus continually rearranges, delimits and prescribes into what ‘awareness of one’s total environment’ these items are arranged.

我们在这里争论的是“主观能力”的概念,就好像电视话语的指称是客观事实,而解释层面是个人化和私人的事情一样。 情况似乎恰恰相反,电视实践恰恰对不同符号在任何话语情境中的关系负有“客观”(也可以说是系统的)责任,因此不断地重新安排、界定和规定这些话语以达到“对一个人的整体环境的意识”的安排。

This brings us to the question of misunderstandings. Television producers who find their message ‘failing to get across’ are frequently concerned to straighten out the kinks in the communication chain, thus facilitating the ‘effectiveness’ of their communication. Much research which claims the objectivity of ‘policyoriented analysis’ reproduces this administrative goal by attempting to discover how much of a message the audience recalls and to improve the extent of understanding. No doubt misunderstandings of a literal kind do exist. The viewer does not know the terms employed, cannot follow the complex logic of argument or exposition, is unfamiliar with the language, finds the concepts too alien or difficult or is foxed by the expository narrative. But more often broadcasters are concerned that the audience has failed to take the meaning as they—the broadcasters—intended. What they really mean to say is that viewers are not operating within the ‘dominant’ or ‘preferred’ code. Their ideal is ‘perfectly transparent communication’. Instead, what they have to confront is ‘systematically distorted communication’.

这给我们带来了误解的问题。 那些发现自己的信息“无法传达”的电视制作人经常关心如何理顺传播链中的问题,从而提高传播的“有效性”。许多声称“政策导向分析”的客观性的研究,通过试图发现观众能记住多少信息和提高理解程度,来重现这一行政(administrative)目标。毫无疑问,字面上的误解确实存在,比如观众不知道所使用的术语,不能理解复杂的论证或论述逻辑,不熟悉语言,认为概念太陌生或太难,或者被说明性的叙述所迷惑。但更多的时候,广播公司担心的是观众没有按照他们(广播公司)的意图来理解含义。他们真正想说的是,观众没有在“主流”或“首选”的代码中操作。他们的理想是 "完全透明的交流",但是他们要面对的是“系统性扭曲的传播”。

In recent years discrepancies of this kind have usually been explained by reference to ‘selective perception’. This is the door via which a residual pluralism evades the compulsions of a highly structured, asymmetrical and non-equivalent process. Of course, there will always be private, individual, variant readings. But ‘selective perception’ is almost never as selective, random or privatized as the concept suggests. The patterns exhibit, across individual variants, significant clusterings. Any new approach to audience studies will therefore have to begin with a critique of ‘selective perception’ theory.

近年来,这种差异通常通过提及“选择性感知”来解释,选择性感知是剩余的多元主义(residual pluralism)用来逃避高度结构化、不对称和非对等过程的强制性的门。 当然,总会存在私人的、个人的、不同的解读。 但“选择性感知”几乎从来没有像概念所暗示的那样具有选择性、随机性或私有化, 这些模式在各个变体中表现出显着的聚类。 因此,任何新的受众研究方法都必须从对“选择性感知”理论的批判开始。

It was argued earlier that since there is no necessary correspondence between encoding and decoding, the former can attempt to ‘prefer’ but cannot prescribe or guarantee the latter, which has its own conditions of existence. Unless they are wildly aberrant, encoding will have the effect of constructing some of the limits and parameters within which decodings will operate. If there were no limits, audiences could simply read whatever they liked into any message. No doubt some total misunderstandings of this kind do exist. But the vast range must contain some degree of reciprocity between encoding and decoding moments, otherwise we could not speak of an effective communicative exchange at all. Nevertheless, this ‘correspondence’ is not given but constructed. It is not ‘natural’ but the product of an articulation between two distinct moments. And the former cannot determine or guarantee, in a simple sense, which decoding codes will be employed. Otherwise communication would be a perfectly equivalent circuit, and every message would be an instance of ‘perfectly transparent communication’. We must think, then, of the variant articulations in which encoding/decoding can be combined. To elaborate on this, we offer a hypothetical analysis of some possible decoding positions, in order to reinforce the point of ‘no necessary correspondence’.

前面有论证,由于编码和解码之间没有必然的对应关系,前者可以试图设定“偏好”,但不能规定或保证后者,后者有自己的存在条件。除非他们是非常异常,否则编码将具有构建一些限制和参数的效果,解码将在这些限制和参数中运作。如果没有限制,听众可以简单地在任何信息中读出他们喜欢的东西。毫无疑问,确实存在一些这样的完全误解。但是,巨大的范围必须包含编码和解码时刻之间某种程度的对等性,否则我们根本无法谈论有效的沟通交流。然而,这种“对应性”不是给定的,而是建构的。它不是“自然的”,而是两个不同时刻之间衔接的产物。而前者不能决定或保证,在一个简单的意义上,哪些解码代码将被采用。否则,传播将是一个完全等价的过程,每条信息都将是“完全透明的传播”的一个实例。那么,我们必须考虑到编码/解码可以结合在一起的各种衔接方式。为了详细说明这一点,我们对一些可能的解码位置进行了假设分析,以加强“没有必要的对应关系”的观点。

We identify three hypothetical positions from which decodings of a televisual discourse may be constructed. These need to be empirically tested and refined. But the argument that decodings do not follow inevitably from encodings, that they are not identical, reinforces the argument of ‘no necessary correspondence’. It also helps to deconstruct the common-sense meaning of ‘misunderstanding’ in terms of a theory of ‘systematically distorted communication’.

我们确定了三个假设位置,从中可以构建电视话语的解码。这些需要根据经验进行测试和完善。但是,解码并不必然来自编码,它们并不完全相同,这一论点强化了“没有必要一定对应”的论点。它还有助于根据“系统性扭曲的沟通”理论解构“误解”的常识性含义。

The first hypothetical position is that of the dominant-hegemonic position. When the viewer takes the connoted meaning from, say, a television newscast or current affairs programme full and straight, and decodes the message in terms of the reference code in which it has been encoded, we might say that the viewer is operating inside the dominant code. This is the ideal-typical case of ‘perfectly transparent communication’—or as close as we are likely to come to it ‘for all practical purposes’. Within this we can distinguish the positions produced by the professional code. This is the position (produced by what we perhaps ought to identify as the operation of a ‘metacode’) which the professional broadcasters assume when encoding a message which has already been signified in a hegemonic manner. The professional code is ‘relatively independent’ of the dominant code, in that it applies criteria and transformational operations of its own, especially those of a technico-practical nature. The professional code, however, operates within the ‘hegemony’ of the dominant code. Indeed, it serves to reproduce the dominant definitions precisely by bracketing their hegemonic quality and operating instead with displaced professional codings which foreground such apparently neutral-technical questions as visual quality, news and presentational values, televisual quality, ‘professionalism’ and so on. The hegemonic interpretations of, say, the politics of Northern Ireland, or the Chilean coup or the Industrial Relations Bill are principally generated by political and military elites: the particular choice of presentational occasions and formats, the selection of personnel, the choice of images, the staging of debates are selected and combined through the operation of the professional code. How the broadcasting professionals are able both to operate with ‘relatively autonomous’ codes of their own and to act in such a way as to reproduce (not without contradiction) the hegemonic signification of events is a complex matter which cannot be further spelled out here. It must suffice to say that the professionals are linked with the defining elites not only by the institutional position of broadcasting itself as an ‘ideological apparatus’, but also by the structure of access (that is, the systematic ‘over-accessing’ of selective elite personnel and their ‘definition of the situation’ in television). It may even be said that the professional codes serve to reproduce hegemonic definitions specifically by not overtly biasing their operations in a dominant direction: ideological reproduction therefore takes place here inadvertently, unconsciously, ‘behind men’s backs’. Of course, conflicts, contradictions and even misunderstandings regularly arise between the dominant and the professional significations and their signifying agencies.

第一个假设的立场是主导-霸权的立场。当观众从电视新闻节目或时事节目中完整而直接地获取内涵,并按照编码的参考代码解码信息时,我们可以说,这一切是观众在主导代码内操作的。这是 “完全透明的交流”的典型案例,或者说是我们有可能“为了所有实际目的”而接近的案例。在这里面,我们可以区分由专业代码产生的立场,这是专业广播员在对已经以霸权方式表示的信息进行编码时采取的立场(由我们也许应该确定为 "元代码 "的运作所产生)。专业代码是“相对独立于”主导代码的,因为它应用了自己的标准和转换操作,特别是那些技术-实践性质的操作。然而,专业准则在主导准则的 "霸权 "下运作。事实上,它恰恰是通过包围其霸权性,并以流离失所的专业编码来重现主导定义的,这些编码突出了诸如视觉质量、新闻和展示价值、电视质量、“专业性”等明显的中性技术问题。对北爱尔兰政治、智利政变或劳资关系法案等的霸权主义解释主要是由政治和军事精英产生的,对呈现场合和形式的特殊选择、对人员的选择、对图像的选择、对辩论的上演都是通过专业代码的操作来选择和组合的。广播专业人员如何既能以自己的“相对自主”的准则运作,又能以这样的方式再现(并非没有矛盾)事件的霸权符号,这是一个复杂的问题,在此无法进一步说明。简而言之,电视专业人员与定义精英的联系,不仅在于广播本身作为“意识形态机器”的体制地位,而且在于获取结构(即精英人员的系统地“过度获取”和他们在电视中的“情况定义”)。甚至可以说,专业准则通过不公开地将其操作偏向于主导方向,具体地服务于霸权定义的再生产。因此,意识形态的再生产在这里不经意地、不自觉地、“在人们背后”发生了。当然,主导意义和专业意义及其符号代理机构之间经常发生冲突、矛盾甚至误解。

The second position we would identify is that of the negotiated code or position. Majority audiences probably understand quite adequately what has been dominantly defined and professionally signified. The dominant definitions, however, are hegemonic precisely because they represent definitions of situations and events which are ‘in dominance’, (global). Dominant definitions connect events, implicitly or explicitly, to grand totalizations, to the great syntagmatic views-of-the-world: they take ‘large views’ of issues: they relate events to the ‘national interest’ or to the level of geo-politics, even if they make these connections in truncated, inverted or mystified ways. The definition of a hegemonic viewpoint is (a) that it defines within its terms the mental horizon, the universe, of possible meanings, of a whole sector of relations in a society or culture; and (b) that it carries with it the stamp of legitimacy—it appears coterminous with what is ‘natural’, ‘inevitable’, ‘taken for granted’ about the social order. Decoding within the negotiated version contains a mixture of adaptive and oppositional elements: it acknowledges the legitimacy of the hegemonic definitions to make the grand significations (abstract), while, at a more restricted, situational (situated) level, it makes its own ground rules—it operates with exceptions to the rule. It accords the privileged position to the dominant definitions of events while reserving the right to make a more negotiated application to ‘local conditions’, to its own more corporate positions. This negotiated version of the dominant ideology is thus shot through with contradictions, though these are only on certain occasions brought to full visibility. Negotiated codes operate through what we might call particular or situated logics: and these logics are sustained by their differential and unequal relation to the discourses and logics of power. The simplest example of a negotiated code is that which governs the response of a worker to the notion of an Industrial Relations Bill limiting the right to strike or to arguments for a wages freeze. At the level of the ‘national interest’ economic debate the decoder may adopt the hegemonic definition, agreeing that ‘we must all pay ourselves less in order to combat inflation’. This, however, may have little or no relation to his/her willingness to go on strike for better pay and conditions or to oppose the Industrial Relations Bill at the level of shop-floor or union organization. We suspect that the great majority of so-called ‘misunderstandings’ arise from the contradictions and disjunctures between hegemonic-dominant encodings and negotiated-corporate decodings. It is just these mismatches in the levels which most provoke defining elites and professionals to identify a ‘failure in communications’.

我们要确定的第二个立场是协商的立场。大多数观众可能非常充分地理解被主导性和专业性控制的东西,然而,主导的定义是霸权主义的,正是因为它们代表了“处于支配地位”(全球)的情况和事件的定义,或隐或显地将事件与宏大的总体化、伟大的世界综合观联系起来。主导性立场与专业性立场对问题采取“大视角”,将事件与“国家利益”或地缘政治层面联系起来,即使它们以截断的、颠倒的或神秘的方式进行联系。霸权主义观点的定义是:(a)它在其条款中定义了一个社会或文化中整个关系部门的精神视野、宇宙、可能的意义;以及(b)它带有合法性的印记——似乎与社会秩序的 “自然”、“不可避免”、“理所当然”的东西相一致。在协商的立场中,解码包含了适应性和对立性的元素:它承认霸权定义的合法性,以制造宏大的符号(抽象的)。同时,虽然在更加受限的情境(处境)层面上,它制定了自己的基本规则——也会有规则例外的情况。协商的立场将特权地位赋予事件的主导立场,同时保留了对“当地条件”进行更多协商应用的权利,以及对其自身更多的社团法人立场。因此,主导的意识形态的协商版本充满了矛盾,尽管这些矛盾只是在某些场合才被充分显示出来。协商的代码通过我们称之为特殊的或处境的逻辑来运作,这些通过它们与权力的话语和逻辑的不同和不平等的关系来维持。协商的立场最简单的例子是,管理工人对限制罢工权利的劳资关系法案的概念或对冻结工资的论点的反应。在“国家利益”的经济辩论层面,解码者可能会采用霸权主义的定义,以同意“我们必须减少自己的工资,以对抗通货膨胀”这一观点。然而,这可能与他/她为更好的薪酬和条件进行罢工或在车间或工会组织层面反对劳资关系法案的意愿几乎没有关系。我们怀疑绝大多数所谓的“误解”是来自霸权主义主导的编码和协商的公司解码之间的矛盾和脱节,正是这些层次上的不匹配,最能激起定义的精英和专业人士所说的“沟通失败”。

Finally, it is possible for a viewer perfectly to understand both the literal and the connotative inflection given by a discourse but to decode the message in a globally contrary way. He/she detotalizes the message in the preferred code in order to retotalize the message within some alternative framework of reference. This is the case of the viewer who listens to a debate on the need to limit wages but ‘reads’ every mention of the ‘national interest’ as ‘class interest’. He/she is operating with what we must call an oppositional code. One of the most significant political moments (they also coincide with crisis points within the broadcasting organizations themselves, for obvious reasons) is the point when events which are normally signified and decoded in a negotiated way begin to be given an oppositional reading. Here the ‘politics of signification’—the struggle in discourse—is joined.

最后,观众有可能完全理解话语的字面和内涵,但以一种完全相反的方式解码。他/她在偏好的代码中解读信息,以便在一些替代性的参考框架中重新解读信息。这就是听了关于限制工资的辩论的观众的情况,但他/她把每一个提到的“国家利益”都“解读”为“阶级利益”。他/她是用我们必须称之为反对性的立场来操作的。最重要的政治时刻之一(由于明显的原因,它们也与广播组织本身的危机点相吻合)是,通常以协商方式被符号化和解码的事件开始被赋予反对性的解读。在这里,"符号的政治"——话语中的斗争被加入。

------------------------------


附全文翻译:

从传统意义上来说,大众传播研究将传播过程描述为循环回路或循环。 该模型因为以下几点受到批评:线性(发送者-消息-接收者,这里指的是拉斯韦尔的5W模式);专注于消息交换的级别;缺乏将不同时刻作为复杂关系结构的结构化概念(动态性)。 但也有可能(也很有用)从一个结构的角度来思考传播过程,这个过程是通过连接但独特的时刻(生产、流通、分配/消费、再生产的衔接)来产生和维持的。这就是将这一过程视为一种“占主导地位的复杂结构”,通过相关实践的表达来维持,然而,每一种实践都保持其独特性,并具有自己特定的模式、自己的形式和存在条件。 这第二种路径与构成马克思的《政治经济学批判大纲》和《资本论》中提供的商品生产流程的框架类似。除此之外,这一过程可以更清楚地表明连续的循环(生产-分配生产)是如何通过“形式的传递”得以维持,并且能强调这个过程的产品在每个时刻 "出现 "的形式的特殊性,从而使话语 “生产”与我们社会和现代媒体系统中的其他类型的生产相区别。

这些实践的“对象”是以特定类型的符号载体形式存在的意义和信息,就像任何形式的交流或语言一样,通过话语的组合链中的代码来操作组织。 因此,生产的装置、关系和实践在特定时刻(比如“生产/流通”的时刻)以在“语言”规则内构成的符号载体的形式出现。正是在这种话语形式下,“产品”的流通得以发生,因此,在生产端,这个过程需要它的物质工具——它的“手段”——以及它自己的一系列社会(生产)关系——媒体机构内实践的组织和组合。 但同时需要注意的是,产品的流通以及它向不同受众的分发都是在这样的话语形式下发生的。 一旦完成,如果要使循环既完整又有效,则必须将话语再次转化为社会实践。 如果没有创造“意义”,就谈不上“消费”。 如果在实践中没有明确表达意思,它就没有作用。 这种方法的价值在于,虽然每一个时刻在衔接上对整个传播过程都是必要的,但没有一个时刻可以完全保证存在与之衔接的下一个时刻。由于每个时刻都有其特定的存在方式和条件,每个时刻都可以构成其自身的中断或“形式通道”的中断,而有效生产的流动(即 “再生产”)则依赖于这种连续性。

因此,尽管决不想将研究限制在“仅遵循内容分析中出现的那些线索”的范围内,但我们必须认识到,信息的话语形式在交际交流中具有特权地位(从传播的角度来看),同时,尽管对于整体传播过程来说, “编码”和“解码”只是“相对自主的”,但它们却是确定的时刻。 一个“原始”历史事件不可能通过电视新闻广播来传播,只能在电视话语的视听形式中被符号化。 当历史事件通过话语被符号化后,受制于语言符号的所有复杂的形式 "规则"。矛盾的是,事件必须先成为“故事”,然后才能成为交流性事件。在那一刻,话语的形式的子规则“处于支配地位”,当然,这并不意味着被符号化的历史事件、规则在其中发挥作用的社会关系或以这种方式符号化的事件的社会和政治后果会被剥夺存在的权利。“信息形式”是事件从源头到接受者的过程中必要的“外观形式”。因此,转入和转出“信息形式”(或符号交换的模式)并不是一个随机的“时刻”,我们可以在方便的时候接受或忽略它。“信息形式”是一个确定的时刻,尽管在另一个层面上,它只包括通信系统的表面运动,并且在另一个阶段作为一部分需要被整合到整个通信过程的社会关系中。

从一般角度来看,我们可以粗略地描述电视传播过程如下。 广播的体制结构,以及它们的实践和生产网络,它们的组织关系和技术基础结构,都是制作节目所需要的。用资本论来类比,这就是话语模式下的“劳动过程”。 在这里,生产构建了消息。 那么,从某种意义上说,传播过程从这里开始。 当然,生产过程并非没有它的“话语”方面:它也始终被意义和思想所框定,比如关于制作常规的知识、历史上定义的技术技能、专业意识形态、制度知识、定义和假设,关于观众的假设等,它们都通过这种生产结构来构成节目。 此外,虽然电视的生产结构起源于电视话语,但它们并不构成一个封闭的系统。 它们从其他来源和更广泛的社会文化和政治结构中的其他话语结构中提取主题、处理方法、议程、事件、人员、观众形象、“情景的定义”,是这些话语结构中的一个不同部分。 菲利普·埃·利奥特 (Philip Elliott)在他对观众既是电视信息的“来源”又是“接收者”的方式的讨论中,在一个更传统的框架内简洁地表达了这一点。 因此——借用马克思的术语——传播和接收确实是电视制作过程中的“时刻”,并通过一些偏态的和结构化的“反馈”重新融入制作过程本身。 因此,电视节目的消费或接收本身也是生产过程的一个“时刻”,尽管后者是“主导的”,因为它是实现消息的“出发点”。因此,电视信息的生产和接收并不完全相同,但它们是相关的:它们是由整个传播过程的社会关系形成的整体中的不同时刻。

然而,在一些时刻,广播结构必须以有意义的话语形式产生编码信息。 机构与社会的生产关系必须在语言的话语规则下通过,其产品才能被“实现”。 这引发了进一步分化的时刻,其中话语和语言的正式形式规则处于主导地位。 在这条消息能够产生“效果”(无论如何定义)、满足“需要”或被“使用”之前,它必须首先被用作有意义的话语并被有意义地解码。 正是这组经过解码的含义“产生了效果”、影响、娱乐、指导或说服,具有非常复杂的感知、认知、情感、意识形态或行为后果。 在一个“确定的”时刻,结构使用代码并产生“信息”:在另一个确定的时刻,“信息”通过其解码,进入社会实践的结构。 我们现在充分意识到,不能用简单的行为术语来理解这种重新进入观众接受和“使用”的做法。 在实证主义研究中确定的孤立元素“效果、使用、满足”中,它们本身受到理解结构的制约,并由社会和经济关系产生,这些关系塑造了它们【指孤立元素们】在接收端的“实现”,并允许话语中的符号意义被转换为实践或意识(获得社会使用价值或政治效果)。

显然,我们在图中标记的“意义结构一”和“意义结构二”可能并不相同。 意义结构不构成“直接的身份”,编码和解码的代码可能不是完全对称的。 对称的程度--即交际交流中的 "理解 "和 "误解 "的程度--取决于在 "拟人化"、编码者/生产者和解码者/接受者的位置之间建立的对称/不对称程度(等价关系)。但同时取决于这些代码(即语言)是否完美或不完美地传递、中断或系统地扭曲了所传递的内容,从而造成了代码之间的同一和差别。编码之间的不一致与广播者和观众之间的关系和地位的结构性差异有很大关系,但它也与“信息源”和“接受者”的编码在转化为话语形式的时刻的不对称性有关。所谓的“扭曲”或“误解”,正是因为交际交流中双方缺乏对等性。这再次确定了信息在其话语时刻的进入和退出的“相对自主性”,但也是“决定性”的。

这种基本范式的应用已经开始改变我们对旧术语“电视内容”的理解,我们才刚刚开始看到它如何改变我们对观众接受、观看和反应的理解。在传播研究中,开头和结尾曾经被宣布过【即5W模式的头和尾】,所以我们必须谨慎行事。但是,我们似乎有理由认为,所谓的受众研究在一个新的和令人兴奋的阶段,一个相当新的类型可能正在打开。在传播链的任意一个节点上,符号学范式的使用都有望消除长期以来困扰大众传媒研究的挥之不去的行为主义,尤其是在其内容方面。尽管我们知道电视节目不是一种行为输入,就像拍打膝盖盖一样,但对于传统的研究者来说,要想在概念化传播过程中不陷入低级行为主义的某种变体,似乎是不可能的。我们知道,正如Gerbner(格伯纳,电视暴力研究的重要代表人之一)所说,电视屏幕上的暴力表现 "不是暴力,而是关于暴力的信息"(一暗含信息是中性的可能,二暗含受众对其重新解读的可能):但我们在研究暴力问题过程中,好像始终无法理解这种认识论上的区别。

电视是复杂的符号。它本身是由视觉和听觉这两种话语的组合构成的。此外,用皮尔斯的术语来说,它是一个图像(iconic)符号,因为“它拥有所代表事物的某些属性”。由于视觉话语将三维世界转化为二维平面,视觉符号当然不可能是它所象征的指称或概念。电影中的狗可以吠叫,但不能咬人!现实存在于语言之外,但它不断地被语言所呈现(mediated),并通过语言来呈现:而我们所能知道和说出的东西必须在话语中产生。话语的“知识”不是语言对“真实”的透明表征的产物,而是语言对真实关系和条件的咬合(articulation)的产物。因此,没有代码的运作,就没有可理解的话语。因此,图像符号也是编码符号--即使这里的编码与其他符号的编码运作方式不同。语言中不存在零度(可能是指基准线/参考线)。自然主义和 "现实主义"——表征对所代表的事物或概念的明显的精确性,是语言对“真实”的某种特定表述的结果和效果。它是一种话语实践的结果。

当然,某些代码可能在一个特定的语言社区或文化中广泛分布,并在很小的时候就被学习了,以至于它们似乎不是被构建的,而像是被“自然”给予的,这就是符号和所指之间的咬合效果。在这个意义上,简单的视觉符号似乎已经实现了 "近乎普遍性(universality)":尽管仍有证据表明,即使是明显“自然的”视觉代码也是有文化特性(specific)的。然而,这并不意味着没有代码的介入;相反,这些编码已经被深刻地自然化了。自然化的代码的运作揭示的不是语言的透明度和“自然性”,而是使用中的代码的深度、习惯性和接近普遍性。它们产生了明显“自然的”认识。这具有掩盖存在的编码实践的(意识形态)效果。但我们不能被表象所迷惑。实际上,自然化的编码所展示的是当编码和解码双方在意义交流中存在基本的一致性和互惠性以及实现的等同性时产生的习惯化程度(即双方都能接受的交流方式)。代码在解码端的功能将经常呈现出自然化感知(类似直觉、第一反应)的状态。这使我们认为,“牛”的视觉符号实际上是(而不是代表)牛这种动物。但是,如果我们考虑一下动物饲养手册中牛的视觉表现,甚至考虑一下语言符号 "牛",我们就会发现,两者在不同程度上对它们所代表的动物的概念都是任意的。一个任意的符号--无论是视觉的还是语言的--与指称物的概念的衔接不是自然的产物,而是惯例的产物,而话语的惯例主义需要代码的干预和支持。因此,Eco认为图像符号“看起来像现实世界中的物体,因为它们再现了观看者的感知条件(也就是代码)”。对于摄影或电视图像来说,这一点与任何其他符号一样真实。然而,图像符号特别容易被“读”成自然的,因为感知的视觉编码分布非常广泛,而且这种类型的符号比语言符号更不随意。在语言符号中,“牛”不具备所代表事物的属性,视觉符号似乎具备其中的一些属性。

这可能有助于我们澄清当前语言学理论中的一个困惑,并准确定义本文中一些关键术语的使用方式。语言学理论经常使用“外延”和“内涵”的区别。术语“外延”被广泛地等同于符号的字面意义:因为这种字面意义几乎被普遍认可,特别是当视觉话语被采用时,“外延”经常被混淆为语言中“现实”的字面转录,因此也被混淆为“自然符号”,一个没有代码干预的符号。另一方面,“内涵”被简单地用来指代不太固定的、因此更常规化的、可改变的、关联性的意义,这些意义显然因实例而异,因此必须依赖于代码的干预。

我们不以这种方式使用区别外延与内涵。 从我们的观点来看,这种区分只是一种分析性的区分。在语言分析中,能够应用一个粗略的经验法区分一个符号的哪些方面被视为其“字面”含义(指称),哪些方面是可以生成更具联想性的含义(内涵),是非常有用的。但是,分析性的区别不能与现实世界中的区别相混淆。在话语中组织起来的符号只表示其“字面”(即接近普遍同意的)意义的情况非常少。在实际的话语中,大多数符号将结合外延和内涵两个方面(如上面重新定义的)。那么,人们可能会问,为什么我们要保留这种区分。这主要是一个分析价值的问题,因为符号在其“联想”意义的层面上(即在内涵层面上)似乎获得了它们的全部意识形态价值,似乎可以说与更广泛的意识形态话语和意义相衔接。因为在这里,"意义 "在自然感知中显然不是固定的(也就是说,它们没有完全自然化),其意义和联想的流动性可以被更充分地利用和转化。在这个层面上,我们可以更清楚地看到意识形态对话语的主动干预:在这里,符号对新的强调(accentuations)开放,用Vološinov的话说,完全被卷入到意义争斗之中,尤其是语言的阶级斗争。事实上,我们可以说,符号的意识形态价值是强烈固定的,因为它已经变得如此完全普遍和“自然”。那么,“外延”和“内涵”这两个词只是有用的分析工具,在特定的语境中,不是区分意识形态在语言中的存在/不存在,而是区分意识形态和话语交织的不同层次。那么,术语“外延”和“内涵”仅仅是有用的在特定情境中用于区分不同层次的意识形态和话语交汇的分析工具,而不是简单地表明语言中意识形态的存在或不存在。

视觉符号的内涵层次,包括它在不同意义和联想的话语领域中的语境参考和定位,是编码符号与文化的深层语义代码交汇的地方,并被赋予了更多更活跃的意识形态维度。我们可以举一个广告话语的例子,在这里,没有“纯粹的外延”,当然也没有“自然”(仿佛与生俱来的固有品质)的表述。广告中的每一个视觉符号都意味着一种质量、情况、价值或推论,它取决于内涵所在的位置,作为一种暗示或隐含的意义而存在。在罗兰·巴特的例子中,毛衣总是象征着一件“温暖的衣服”(外延),从而象征着 “保暖”的活动/价值。但在其更多的内涵层面上,它也有可能象征着“冬天的到来”或“寒冷的日子”。而且,在时尚的特定代码中,毛衣也可能意味着一种高级时装的时尚风格,或者,一种非正式的服饰风格。但是,在恰当的视觉背景下,在浪漫的代码的定位下,它可能意味着“秋天在森林里散步”。 这种秩序的代码明确地将符号与社会中更广泛的意识形态的关系联系起来,这些代码是权力和意识形态在特定话语中被制成符号的手段。它们将符号指向任何文化都被归入其中的“意义地图”,而这些“社会现实的地图”又包括了各种社会意义、社会实践、使用方法、权力和利益。巴特说,符号的内涵层面“与文化、知识、历史有着密切的交流,可以说,环境世界正是通过它们侵入了语言和语义系统。你可以说它们正是意识形态的碎片"。

所谓电视符号的外延(detonation,中文中用外延层面多少是有点奇怪,但是为了与前文保持统一这里仍然如此翻译)层面是由某些非常复杂(但有限或“封闭”)的代码固定的。电视符号的内涵层面,虽然也是有界限的,但更加开放,也能利用多义性的价值受到更积极的改造,任何这样已经构成的符号都有可能转化为一个以上的内涵配置。然而,多义性决不能与多元性相混淆。内涵代码之间是不平等的。任何社会 / 文化都倾向于以不同程度的封闭性将其对社会、文化和政治世界的分类强加于人,这些构成了一个主导的文化秩序,尽管它既不是明确的也不是无争议的。这个“支配性话语的结构”的问题是一个关键点。社会生活的不同领域似乎被可以被映射到话语领域,并且分等级地组织成主导或偏好的意义。新的、有问题的或令人不安的事件,打破了我们的期望,与我们的“常识构造”和我们对社会结构的“想当然”的知识背道而驰,在它们被说成 "有意义 "之前,必须被分配到它们的既有的合理的话语体系(discursive domains)中。对它们进行“映射”的最常见方式是将新的东西分配到现有的“有问题的社会现实地图”的某个领域。我们说主导的,而不是“决定性的”,因为总是有可能在不止一个“映射”中对一个事件进行排序、分类、分配和解码。但我们之所以说“主导”,是因为存在着一种“首选解读”的模式,而这些都有制度/政治/意识形态秩序的印记,并且本身已经制度化了。“首选意义(preferred meanings)”的领域将整个社会秩序作为一组意义、实践和信仰嵌入其中,包括关于社会结构的日常知识、关于“在这种文化中事情是如何实际运作的”、权力和利益的等级秩序以及合法性、限度和制裁的结构。因此,要在内涵层面澄清一个“误解”,我们必须通过代码来参考社会生活、经济和政治权力以及意识形态的秩序。此外,虽然这些映射是“结构化的支配”,但不是封闭的,因此在传播过程中并不是将每个视觉元素都毫无问题地分配到预先设定的代码集合中的特定位置,而是通过表演性的规则、能力和使用的规则以及使用的逻辑(即理解代码及代码使用的基础逻辑),积极地考虑应该将哪些代码的含义率先强化或优化,并确定哪些元素属于对应的意义集合。形式符号学常常忽略了这种解释工作的实践,尽管这实际上构成了电视广播实践的真正关系。

那么,在谈到支配性意义时,我们并不是在谈论一个支配所有事件如何被符号化的片面过程。它包括在支配性定义的范围内强制执行以及为其赢得合理性并要求对事件进行合法解码所需的“工作”,在这种情况下,这些时间已经被隐晦地符号化(connotatively signified)。泰尔尼评论道:

“ 通过阅读这个词,我们不仅指的是识别和解码一定数量的符号的能力,而且也指的是将这些符号置于它们之间以及与其他符号之间的创造性关系中的主观能力,这种能力本身就是对一个人的全部环境进行完整认识的条件。”

我们在这里争论的是“主观能力”的概念,就好像电视话语的指称是客观事实,而解释层面是个人化和私人的事情一样。 情况似乎恰恰相反,电视实践恰恰对不同符号在任何话语情境中的关系负有“客观”(也可以说是系统的)责任,因此不断地重新安排、界定和规定这些话语以达到“对一个人的整体环境的意识”的安排。

这给我们带来了误解的问题。 那些发现自己的信息“无法传达”的电视制作人经常关心如何理顺传播链中的问题,从而提高传播的“有效性”。许多声称“政策导向分析”的客观性的研究,通过试图发现观众能记住多少信息和提高理解程度,来重现这一行政(administrative)目标。毫无疑问,字面上的误解确实存在,比如观众不知道所使用的术语,不能理解复杂的论证或论述逻辑,不熟悉语言,认为概念太陌生或太难,或者被说明性的叙述所迷惑。但更多的时候,广播公司担心的是观众没有按照他们(广播公司)的意图来理解含义。他们真正想说的是,观众没有在“主流”或“首选”的代码中操作。他们的理想是 "完全透明的交流",但是他们要面对的是“系统性扭曲的传播”。

近年来,这种差异通常通过提及“选择性感知”来解释,选择性感知是剩余的多元主义(residual pluralism)用来逃避高度结构化、不对称和非对等过程的强制性的门。 当然,总会存在私人的、个人的、不同的解读。 但“选择性感知”几乎从来没有像概念所暗示的那样具有选择性、随机性或私有化, 这些模式在各个变体中表现出显着的聚类。 因此,任何新的受众研究方法都必须从对“选择性感知”理论的批判开始。

前面有论证,由于编码和解码之间没有必然的对应关系,前者可以试图设定“偏好”,但不能规定或保证后者,后者有自己的存在条件。除非他们是非常异常,否则编码将具有构建一些限制和参数的效果,解码将在这些限制和参数中运作。如果没有限制,听众可以简单地在任何信息中读出他们喜欢的东西。毫无疑问,确实存在一些这样的完全误解。但是,巨大的范围必须包含编码和解码时刻之间某种程度的对等性,否则我们根本无法谈论有效的沟通交流。然而,这种“对应性”不是给定的,而是建构的。它不是“自然的”,而是两个不同时刻之间衔接的产物。而前者不能决定或保证,在一个简单的意义上,哪些解码代码将被采用。否则,传播将是一个完全等价的过程,每条信息都将是“完全透明的传播”的一个实例。那么,我们必须考虑到编码/解码可以结合在一起的各种衔接方式。为了详细说明这一点,我们对一些可能的解码位置进行了假设分析,以加强“没有必要的对应关系”的观点。

我们确定了三个假设位置,从中可以构建电视话语的解码。这些需要根据经验进行测试和完善。但是,解码并不必然来自编码,它们并不完全相同,这一论点强化了“没有必要一定对应”的论点。它还有助于根据“系统性扭曲的沟通”理论解构“误解”的常识性含义。

第一个假设的立场是主导-霸权的立场。当观众从电视新闻节目或时事节目中完整而直接地获取内涵,并按照编码的参考代码解码信息时,我们可以说,这一切是观众在主导代码内操作的。这是 “完全透明的交流”的典型案例,或者说是我们有可能“为了所有实际目的”而接近的案例。在这里面,我们可以区分由专业代码产生的立场,这是专业广播员在对已经以霸权方式表示的信息进行编码时采取的立场(由我们也许应该确定为 "元代码 "的运作所产生)。专业代码是“相对独立于”主导代码的,因为它应用了自己的标准和转换操作,特别是那些技术-实践性质的操作。然而,专业准则在主导准则的 "霸权 "下运作。事实上,它恰恰是通过包围其霸权性,并以流离失所的专业编码来重现主导定义的,这些编码突出了诸如视觉质量、新闻和展示价值、电视质量、“专业性”等明显的中性技术问题。对北爱尔兰政治、智利政变或劳资关系法案等的霸权主义解释主要是由政治和军事精英产生的,对呈现场合和形式的特殊选择、对人员的选择、对图像的选择、对辩论的上演都是通过专业代码的操作来选择和组合的。广播专业人员如何既能以自己的“相对自主”的准则运作,又能以这样的方式再现(并非没有矛盾)事件的霸权符号,这是一个复杂的问题,在此无法进一步说明。简而言之,电视专业人员与定义精英的联系,不仅在于广播本身作为“意识形态机器”的体制地位,而且在于获取结构(即精英人员的系统地“过度获取”和他们在电视中的“情况定义”)。甚至可以说,专业准则通过不公开地将其操作偏向于主导方向,具体地服务于霸权定义的再生产。因此,意识形态的再生产在这里不经意地、不自觉地、“在人们背后”发生了。当然,主导意义和专业意义及其符号代理机构之间经常发生冲突、矛盾甚至误解。

我们要确定的第二个立场是协商的立场。大多数观众可能非常充分地理解被主导性和专业性控制的东西,然而,主导的定义是霸权主义的,正是因为它们代表了“处于支配地位”(全球)的情况和事件的定义,或隐或显地将事件与宏大的总体化、伟大的世界综合观联系起来。主导性立场与专业性立场对问题采取“大视角”,将事件与“国家利益”或地缘政治层面联系起来,即使它们以截断的、颠倒的或神秘的方式进行联系。霸权主义观点的定义是:(a)它在其条款中定义了一个社会或文化中整个关系部门的精神视野、宇宙、可能的意义;以及(b)它带有合法性的印记——似乎与社会秩序的 “自然”、“不可避免”、“理所当然”的东西相一致。在协商的立场中,解码包含了适应性和对立性的元素:它承认霸权定义的合法性,以制造宏大的符号(抽象的)。同时,虽然在更加受限的情境(处境)层面上,它制定了自己的基本规则——也会有规则例外的情况。协商的立场将特权地位赋予事件的主导立场,同时保留了对“当地条件”进行更多协商应用的权利,以及对其自身更多的社团法人立场。因此,主导的意识形态的协商版本充满了矛盾,尽管这些矛盾只是在某些场合才被充分显示出来。协商的代码通过我们称之为特殊的或处境的逻辑来运作,这些通过它们与权力的话语和逻辑的不同和不平等的关系来维持。协商的立场最简单的例子是,管理工人对限制罢工权利的劳资关系法案的概念或对冻结工资的论点的反应。在“国家利益”的经济辩论层面,解码者可能会采用霸权主义的定义,以同意“我们必须减少自己的工资,以对抗通货膨胀”这一观点。然而,这可能与他/她为更好的薪酬和条件进行罢工或在车间或工会组织层面反对劳资关系法案的意愿几乎没有关系。我们怀疑绝大多数所谓的“误解”是来自霸权主义主导的编码和协商的公司解码之间的矛盾和脱节,正是这些层次上的不匹配,最能激起定义的精英和专业人士所说的“沟通失败”。

最后,观众有可能完全理解话语的字面和内涵,但以一种完全相反的方式解码。他/她在偏好的代码中解读信息,以便在一些替代性的参考框架中重新解读信息。这就是听了关于限制工资的辩论的观众的情况,但他/她把每一个提到的“国家利益”都“解读”为“阶级利益”。他/她是用我们必须称之为反对性的立场来操作的。最重要的政治时刻之一(由于明显的原因,它们也与广播组织本身的危机点相吻合)是,通常以协商方式被符号化和解码的事件开始被赋予反对性的解读。在这里,"符号的政治"——话语中的斗争被加入。


ps. 因为编辑的时候忘记添加图片进去了现在无法添加,可以对应原文。

CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 授权

喜欢我的作品吗?别忘了给予支持与赞赏,让我知道在创作的路上有你陪伴,一起延续这份热忱!