【作者】 张淑萍；

【导师】 曹进；

【作者基本信息】 西北师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2008， 硕士

【摘要】 罗兰·巴特的符号学思想由文化符号学和文学符号学两部分组成。文学符号学强调文学作品的形式和结构分析以期探究其中的意义生产方式,反映了巴特“形式决定意义(内容)”的文学符号学思想。在文化符号学中,巴特强调意义是什么、致力于意义的探讨,并发现现代神话操纵着大众文化及其符号的运作方式。这表明了他“意义决定形式”的文化符号学思想,也使得他超越了结构主义者的窠臼而成为意义论者。本论文以巴特的文化符号学思想为研究对象,以他的神话意义为研究核心,旨在修正传统上对巴特所给予的“结构主义者”的定论:在文学符号学中,他强调形式。是结构主义者;在文化符号学中,他强调意义,是意义论者。本论文以广告为例探讨巴特的文化符号学思想,由六部分组成:第一章追溯了中西方关于意义与形式问题讨论的历史,得出结论:注重形式是西方文化的一个传统。巴特继承了这一传统但并未拘泥于此,他研究并发现了大众文化的实质:意义决定形式,或者说是中产阶级意识形态决定大众文化的表现方式。第二章纵览了巴特在结构主义时期的符号学著作,同时也梳理了他的文化符号学思想从开始走向成熟的过程。之后对中西方学者关于巴特文化符号学思想的研究综述表明:巴特的文化符号学思想是大众文化批评从上世纪五十年代开始蓬勃发展起来的主要原因。第三章阐述了索绪尔关于符号、能指、所指、组合以及聚合等的语言学概念。符号由能指和所指,即形式与内容(意义)组成,能指和所指是心理概念而非物质概念,它们之间的联系具有任意性。价值来自于能指间的差异与对比,所以从组合与聚合入手对符号做系统分析是符号学研究的重要策略。第四章研究巴特的文化符号学思想。巴特认为,绝大多数符号学里的能指是功能性符号,即具有物质性。三层意指表明所指包括外延、内涵和神话。外延指符号的表面意义,内涵是丰富的,指体现在符号中的时尚观、价值观、生活方式及态度等。神话是所有内涵意义的总括,即中产阶级意识形态。神话既是形式的,也是历史的,符号的和意识形态的,它无处不在,操纵着整个社会的意识形态走向。大众文化中繁芜的能指旨在彰显神话,使其深入人心。在文化符号学中,能指间的组合方式既可以是时间性的,也可以是空间性的。其实所指间的组合方式也是如此,但研究者总是以研究能指间的组合方式为主。目的是考察能指的变化能否导致其所指的相应改变。在对聚合的考察中,对立、中和、逾越是分析这一系统的手段。第五章通过分析广告来阐释巴特的文化符号学思想。首先,广告中的符号既是功能性的,又是充满意义的。广告符号作为中介连接着产品与世事,这种连接不是逻辑性的,而是人为的。而今,广告符号的实用性功能在隐退而意义在膨胀,激起受众的占有欲从而提高产品的销售额其次,广告中的涵义包括内涵和神话两部分,它们都属于表层意识形态的范畴。广告中的深层意识形态是消费主义,它是表层意识形态的基础,掌握着表层意识形态的总趋势。表层意识形态和深层意识形态表面看起来是矛盾的,因为深层意识形态提倡消费主义,而表层意识形态则表现对人的关爱。这种矛盾其实质是广告的终极目标与实现手段之间的矛盾。再次,对两则手机广告从横组合与纵聚合两方面的分析显示:表面上看来能指决定所指,即形式决定意义。实则相反,神话意义是先于形式存在于广告制作者的脑海里的,他们的任务是找到恰当的形式来表达既定的意义,这个形式应该微妙地推出意义,使意义的展现显得自然,合理,从而使普通受众在不经意间接受它。所以,在广告中形式最终是由意义来决定的。最后,广告中的能指是丰富的而所指是相对贫乏的,能指的狂欢旨在表达意义。神话是广告的主旨,虽然它是隐晦的,但却以含蓄的方式主宰着形式,操纵着意义的生产方式。广告的功能是缔造神话,说服受众接受中产阶级意识形态,接受消费主义并参与到以中产阶级意识形态为标准来审时度势的潮流中去。第六章是总结。对广告所做的解神话的过程是理解巴特以意义为主旨的文化符号学思想的过程,也进一步证实了意义在大众文化中的主导性地位。更多还原

【Abstract】 Roland Barthes’s semiotic thoughts were composed of two branches, cultural semiotics and literarysemiotics. His literary semiotics laid emphasis on form and structure analysis of literature works in order toexplore meaning making process, and demonstrated his tendency of form determining meaning. Whilst hiscultural semiotics stressed what the meaning was. He concentrated on the mythic meaning exploration in all hiscultural semiotic works, and found out it was modern myth that manipulated mass culture and the way of signspresentation, which confirmed his standpoint of meaning determining form in his cultural semiotic thoughts andenabled him to surpass his denomination as a structuralist and become meaning-oriented. This thesis focuses onhis cultural semiotic thoughts analysis and mythic meaning exploration with the purpose of revising the traditiondomination of Barthes as a structuralist and to claim that he was a structuralist in his literary semiotics butmeaning-oriented in his cultural semiotic thoughts, which is illustrated with ads analyses. It concludes sixchapters:Chapter 1 traces the history of discussion on meaning and form in both western and Chinese culture, andproves that emphasizing form is a tradition in western culture. Barthes has inherited the thinking tendencywithout confining himself to it since he started from the form analyses of mass culture and ended with theconclusion that meaning—middle class ideology or modern myth was the gist of form.Chapter 2 surveys Barthes’s semiotics works in structuralism period and investigates his cultural semioticthoughts from its beginning to maturity. Meanwhile, western and Chinese studies on Barthes’s cultural semioticthoughts are dealt with respectively and confirmed that his viewpoints on mass culture has triggered out theflowering of mass media criticism since 1950s.Chapter 3 centers on Saussure’s linguistic concepts such as sign, signifier, signified, syntagm and paradigm.Sign is composed of signifier (form) and signified (content/meaning), both of them are psychological. Therelationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary and value comes into being from the differences betweensignifiers, so syntagmatic and paradigmatic analyses of signs are of great importance.Chapter 4 studies Barthes’s notions on cultural semiotics. Many signifiers in semiotics are“sign-function”,having a substance of expression. Three levels of signification indicate that signified is composed of denotation,connotation and myth. Denotation refers to literal meaning of a sign. Connotation is the rich and colorfulexhibition of fashion, values, living attitudes, life style and so on, and myth is the total of these connotativemeaning—middle class ideology. Myth is at once formal and historical, semiological and ideological. Rich and varied signifiers in mass culture are to express myth, which permeates everywhere in the society, attempts tomanipulate the ideological tendency of the whole society.In cultural semiotics, Syntagmatic relationships might be either sequential or spatial, which exist bothbetween signifiers and between signifieds, but mainly concentrate on signifiers with the purpose of testingwhether the change of a signifier would result in the corresponding changes of its signified. Paradigmis a systemin which opposition, neutralization and transgression are adopted as analyzing methodologies.Chapter 5 illustrates Barthes’s cultural semiotic thoughts with ads analyses from several aspects. Firstly,signs in ads are both functional and meaningful. Ads signs are padded with limitless meaning though there is nological relationship between product and world, but of arbitrary value. Meaning overwhelms utility nowadaysand it is the meaning that creates possessing desire and promotes sales.Secondly, meaning in ads refers to connotation and myth, which belong to the level of surface ideologythat is dominated by the deep ideology. Deep ideology in ads is consumerism, whilst surface ideology showsloving care for human beings. The contradiction is essentially the one between the final goal of ads and its meansof realization.Thirdly, structural analyses of two mobile phone ads by using syntagmatic and paradigmatic methodologiesclarify a fact that syntagmatic composition determines the paradigmatic association or form determines meaningsuperficially, but the truth is that mythic meaning is formed in ads designers’mind in advance and their work isto find suitable signifiers to express the meaning. The result is that ads are constructed in a subtle way to makethe mythic meaning seem automatic and natural, and common readers are expected to accept it doubtlessly. Someaning determines formeventually in ads.Finally, signifiers are rich and signifieds are relatively poor in ads, and the reveling of signifiers is just formeaning’s sake. Myth is the forever gist of ads though it veils and manipulates forms in an implicate way. Thefunction of ads is producing myth and persuading ads readers to participate in the ideological ways of judgingthe world and accept the consumption vieweventually even the ideological viewof the dominant class.Chapter 6 concludes that the process of dymystification in ads coincides the meaning-oriented gist inRoland Barthes’s cultural semiotic thoughts and it still strengthens his standpoint of meaning’s overwhelmingposition in mass culture.更多还原