Arrows, definitions, question marks and my own remarks fill the sheets of this essay, considering that I have read it 4 times already. Even after reading it this much I am still not perfectly clear about what’s going on in the essay. My general and obvious understanding of the essay is that different signs have different meaning behind them and we frequently have to “read between the lines”, as the essay states. Based on the content of a word or sign, we build a picture of what may be portrayed. As for examples, the once Roland Barthes uses in the second paragraph.
In the content of this essay I saw reading as an understanding and interpretation. The “he” from the essay, interpret the status of the owner of the vehicle with the little visible information that was available to him-which was the car. We know reading as the ability to utter or say something that is written. To semiologist reading is to apprehend the connoted meaning of signs. I also understood that to fully comprehend, we need not to look much into the content of the word but the “making”. This means the root/origin of the word. Everything is expanding and changing, especially the way we use words, the way we interpret them. Does this mean that we are only paying attention to the significance of the word rather than the fact of what it is and where it came from?
No comments:
Post a Comment