TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page i
Declaration ii
Certification iii
Dedication iv
Acknowledgments v
Table of content vi-viii
List of Figures ix
Abstract x
CHAPTER ONE
Background of the study
1.0 Introduction 1-3
1.1 Words, Language and Function of Language 3-7
1.2 Written Vs Spoken Language 7-13
1.3 Graffiti as a Phenomenon 14-15
1.4 Statement of the Problem 16-17
1.5 Aims and Objectives of the study 17-18
1.6 Significance of the Study 18-19
1.7 Scope and Delimitation of the study 19
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.0 Introduction 20
2.1 Topical Review 20-28
2.2 Pragmatics and Semiotics: An overview of Literature 28
| 2.2.1 Issues on Pragmatics | 28-36 |
| 2.2.2 Issues on Semiotics | 36-38 |
| 2.2.3 The Pragma-Semiotic Model Approach | 38-41 |
| 2.2.4 The Metalanguage of Pragma-Semiotics | 41-42 |
| A. Sign, Signifier and Signified | 42-44 |
| B. Context, System and World Knowledge | 44-46 |
| C. Intention, Message and Participants | 46-47 |
| D. Denotation, Connotation and Master Speech Act | 47-49 |
| E. Sense, Reference and Inference | 49-50 |
| F. Symbols, Indices and Icons | 50-51 |
| G. Encoding, Code and Decoding | 51-52 |
| H. Text, Co-Text and Inter-Test | 52-53 |
| I. Locution, Illocution and Perlocution | 53-54 |
| J. Colour, Picture and Image | 55-56 |
| K. Presupposition, Entailment and Implicature | 56-57 |
L. Constative/Performative Acts, Direct/Indirect Speech
Act and Face-Saving/Face-Threatening Acts 58-61
2.3 Theoretical Framework 61-64
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction 65
| 3.1 Sources of Data | 65 |
| 3.2 Method of Data Collection | 65-67 |
| 3.3 Analytical Procedure | 67-68 |
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION OF DATA, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
| 4.0 Introduction | 69 |
| 4.1 Presentation of Data | 69-71 |
| 4.2 Data Analyses | 71-86 |
| 4.3 Research Results | 87-89 |
| 4.4 Findings | 89-92 |
| 4.5 General Discussion CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION | 92-94 |
| 5.0 Summary | 95-98 |
| 5.1 Conclusion | 97-98 |
| Bibliography | 99-107 |
| Appendix | 108 |
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 4: Peirce Elements of ‘Semeiois’ 43
Fig 2: One Way Model of Communication 62
Fig 1: The Three level Pragma-Semiotic Model (Achi 2010). 63
Fig 3: The Shanon-Weaver Model of Communication 62
ABSTRACT
This work is a pragma-semiotic analysis of graffiti of Kaduna Polytechnic students. Graffiti refer to the crude inscriptions or drawings which can be found on the doors and walls of public places. In this paper, an attempt is made to understand the signification systems involved in students’ graffiti, hence the employment of elements of pragmatics and semiotics necessary for the interpretation of the various meanings and their effect on the decoders. The fact that there is fluidity of pragmatics in semiotics and the effect of this is the prompt interpretation of symbols and reaction to the systems of signs. The pragma-semiotic theory therefore, investigates the totality of signification systems, linguistic (verbal) and non-linguistic (pictorial, colour, image etc). The findings from this study concludes that students graffiti are meant to inform the decoder, affect his/her opinions by persuading him/her towards a particular point of view, influence and orient him/her morally towards more beneficial and positive goals, warn about impending danger, and generally integrate everyone for mass participation in the desired and altruistic regeneration of development efforts. Most importantly, student’ graffiti are found to be verdictives, exersitives, commissives, behavitives and expositives which account for the perlocutionary effect on the decoder. The study arrived at such findings by integrating Austin, Searle and Adegbija’s theory of speech acts and Peirce’s theory of
‘semeiois’.
CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
Banish the use of the four-letter words
Whose meaning is never obscure;
The Anglos, the Saxons, those bawdy old birds Were vulgar, obscene, and impure.
But cherish the use of the weaseling phrase
That never quite says what it means; You’d better be known for your hypocrite ways Than vulgar, impure and obscene.
OG’DEN NASH, “Ode to the Four-Letter Words.”
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The need to communicate is a powerful and consuming one.
Language is the vehicle that man has devised to satisfy such need. “The kind of language that man uses, hears, or reads shapes, to a surprising extent, the world he lives in” (Adedimeji, 2002). Without language, there is no society, and without society, man, a social animal, does not exist.
Many scholars have defined language, with most of them
accentuating their curiosities. “It has been an object of fascination and a subject for enquiry for over two hundred years”, (Crystal, 1997:400). Cited in Crystal (1997:400) are scholars such as Sapir (1921), who defines language as “a purely human, non instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions and desires by means of voluntarily produced symbols” and Trager (1949), who posits that it is “a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which the members of a society interact in terms of their total culture”. Crystal further cites Chomsky (1959) and Hall (1964) who opine respectively that language is “a set (finite and infinite) of sentences, each finite in length and constructed out of a finite set of elements” and “the institution whereby humans communicate and interact with each other by means of habitually used oral-auditory arbitrary symbols.” To Bloomfield, as quoted in Chomsky (1986:16), “language is the totality of utterances that can be made in a speech community” and it is no less than “a human instrument of expression through sounds as released by vocal chords” Quirk (1962:42). While Cruse (1990:140) technically defines language as a “system of conventional signs all aspects of whose structure serve the sovereign function of meaning”. Watson and Hill (1993:170) conceive language as “a system of signs and representations, arranged by codes and articulated through various discourses”.
It can be surmised from the foregoing that language is a system of signs, verbal or non-verbal, through which human beings in their varying cultures and contexts exchange ideas and communicate feelings. As a result, we are beset with ambiguities as in the case with messages inherent in these signs and representations. Each person interpreting a particular sign in terms of his/her own experience may incorrectly assume that a given code means the same thing to every body. In fact, we are often misled into believing that our shared use of languages denote a shared wealth of experience.
1.1 WORDS, LANGUAGE AND FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE
“The component parts of language are, of course, words” (Pryse, 1984:1). They are the blocks, in their various hues, sizes and classes, with which the magnificent building of language is constructed. Without words, which we use essentially to communicate, there is no language; without language, there is no society; and without society, man, a social animal does not exist. In fact, given that all other forms of human communication are confined to certain fields of expression, “there is no substitute for words” (Boulton 1960:8).
Webster’s Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus (2007) defines “word” as “a single unit of language in speech or writing; talk, discussion, a message; a promise; a command; information;……” For the purpose of this study, “word” is considered a unit of meaning. Every word must give a “sense” prompted by general / conventional or specific / contextual determinism.
Today, we are living in a world of words. The preponderance of information available to us in our modern world makes people talk of “information explosion”. For everywhere one goes in our campuses, words are there on the walls with (un) intelligible messages with different shapes, sizes and colours,. “Today’s world solely depends on words: how to form them; use or manipulate them, interpret and reconstruct them to fashion out reality” (Adedimeji, 1999:2).
Man is the only creature that uses words intentionally and habitually. As noted by Boulton (1960:3), a parrot or a Mynah may talk in fashion, but it would be impossible to discuss any subject with a talking bird. Therefore, given the peculiar nature of students, one of their main pre occupations is doing “things with words”, as Austin (1962) advances.
According to Birk and Birk (1959:3), mere words can make and prevent wars, create understanding or inflame prejudice, form constitutions or destroy them, sell, shoddy or superior products or ideas, justify man’s worst actions or express his highest ideas. “Words engineering”, if one may conveniently propose that term, is just one business of graffitists, justifying the adages, words cut keener than knives” and “the pen is mightier than the sword”.
When words are assembled and organized in the acceptable conventional and logical order, both paradigmatically and
syntagmatically, what is realized is language. Language is thus the physical structure constructed when some / all levels of linguistic study are put into work: phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatic. “It is through the manifestation of these, wholly or partly, that language attains its essence as a restatement of symbolic transformation of experience” (Brooks, 1964:99).
As non-specialists are bound to say, the basic function of language is
“to send information” or “to tell other people your thoughts” (Adegbite, 2000:67). Moreover, the Functions of language are many and have been characterized by experts. Language functions, according to Jakobson as later developed by Hymes (cited in Adegbite, 2000:68) include the emotive function (communicating the inner states and emotions of the addresser), the conative function (using vocatives and imperatives to call the attention of another or requiring them to carry cut some action), the phatic function (opening the channel and checking that it is working for social reasons), the poetic function (choosing a particular form as the essence of message) and
metalinguistic function (focusing attention on the code itself, to clarify it or negotiate it). All these are “micro functions” developed from the elements of communication or “macro functions” (Adegbite, 2000:68).
Halliday (1973) observes that language has three functions which are ideational (an expression of content or message), interpersonal
(sharing of one’s feelings, ideas and emotions with others) and textual (creation of text, through which a link is made between language and situation).
Crystal (1997: 10-13) contends that language is used for eight purposes. He identifies and explains that language is used for:
i) Communication of ideas ii) Emotional expression (as in frustration); iii) Social interaction (i.e. greeting); iv) The power of sound (i.e. alliteration);
v) The control of reality (i.e. magic or incantation); vi) Recording the facts; vii)The instrument of thought; and viii) The expression of identity (i.e. the signaling of who we are and where we belong).
In line with the above, this study examines graffiti, which is an aspect of students’ life on campus. Students graffiti is predominantly a language of signs and representations which depict their beliefs, experiences and practices. These various forms of writing are acts of communication which aim to produce a particular effect on the public depending on what is written on the walls. Hence, each time they are depicted, the writers want to influence the public through their beliefs and values, trying to portray who they are and what they believe in.
1.2 WRITTEN VS SPOKEN LANGUAGE
Linguistic scholars are generally not agreed on the exact relationship between spoken and written language. Quite a number of scholars subscribe to the ‘Doctrine of Independence’ which argues that the grapheme and the phonemes should be seen as separate and independent of each other. Others maintain that there is mutual relationship between the two.
It was not until the 1960s that the ‘Doctrine of Independence’ became central in linguistics. The number of its supporters multiplied considerably during this time. Notable among them were Hyelmslev (1953); A. Penttila (1932); McLaughlin (1963); McIntosh A (1966) and to some extent, D.L Bolinger (1946) and W. Hass (1970). Though these people subscribe to the doctrine, they still acknowledge the similarities between spoken and written language.
The Finis linguist, A. Penttila, is believed to be the pioneer of the ‘Doctrine of Independence’. He maintained in 1932 that the graphemic language be regarded as an independent symbol system from the phonemic system (Fishman, 1997). He however, later contradicted himself by adding that both systems need not be mutually exclusive of each other as there is an extensive correspondence between them.
On his part, Angus McIntosh (1966) argues that the written language system differs from speech especially in their expression. While the written language is visual, speech is purely auditory and acoustic. He however confesses that both systems are in a sort of filial relationship within the entire language system. According to him, “written language and spoken language both symbolize mental experience, but the written language by virtue of its graphological system, also symbolizes spoken language” (McIntosh,1966:99).
In his own contribution, Louis Hjelmslev contends that writing and speech are two different manifestation (or what he calls “expression substances”) of the same expressive form called ‘language’. Elaborating on this point further, Hjelmslev says, “Our something, that which is common to sound and letters alike is a form (i.e language), but the substance of ink (i.e. writing has not received the same attention that linguists have lavishly bestowed on the substances of air” (i.e. speech) (Hjelmslev, 1953:67). What Hjelmslev implies here is that language scholars tend to devote more time and space to the study of spoken language than the written form, though he considers both forms as mutually related.
Also in support of the ‘Doctrine of independence’ is John McLaughlin. To him, there is no question of one kind of expression revealing something significant about the other. This implies that speech and writing are mutually independent of each other and both should be treated as such. In one of his works, however, he maintains, “system as independent mode of language expression and as a system of signs representing segments in the spoken language system” (McLaughlin, 1963:23). This statement sharply contradicts his apparent support for the ‘Doctrine of Independence’. He continues with this contradiction when he says, “one of the most interesting features of an alphabetic writing system is, of course, that as a system of signs, it provides the basis for assumptions about the structure of the spoken system…” By this statement, McLaughlin once again reaffirms the mutual relationship between speech and writing. In his book titled Language (1946:333), L. Bolinger who is also a proponent of the ‘Doctrine of Independence’, argues that “writing can exist as a series of morphemes at its own level…” he inevitably admits later that writing may interact with the “more fundamental vocalauditory morphemes” which relate to speech. He also admits that “most writing is the graphic representation of the vocal-auditory processes.” These statements only lay credence to the mutual relationship between the two systems. This discussion cannot be complete without a look at the views of renown linguists like W. Haas and C.V Taylor. Both names represent yet another view within the school of thought that strongly supports the ‘Doctrine of Independence’. Unlike other members of the same group, however, the two scholars base their stand on translation.
W. Hass’ theory of translatability (Haas, 1970) seems to isolate speech from writing. However, this theory is not illuminating as there is extensive evidence of correspondence between the speech and writing of the same language as far as the matching of phonemes with appropriate graphemes is concerned. Therefore, there cannot be any easy and effective translation if two languages differ in various respects and at all levels. This argument clearly disproves the validity of Hass’ theory. In support of Hass’ Theory of Translatability’, C.V. Taylor says, “The fact that, so far as we know, writing systems have not appeared without being based in some way upon speech does not mean they could not do so” (Tauli, 1977:20). It can be gathered from this statement that Taylor regards speech and writing as two separate dimensions of language. The argument here is that translation mainly renders the semantic meaning of another language, but only a part of the syntactic structure. This is because various structural features are untranslatable. On the contrary, writing renders most of the syntactic, morphological and phonological features of speech. This argument also disproves the validity of the ‘theory of translatability as well as the ‘Doctrine of Independence’.
Ibileye (2002) in his own view acknowledges that, “…Writing is an imperfect representation of speech because it is incapable of reflecting several features, which are peculiar to the spoken language”.
It is pertinent to say, at this juncture, that the relationship between speech and writing is not that of mutual independence as some scholars claim. Rather, it is that of mutual correspondence. This involves the matching of graphemes with appropriate phonemes. And the structural similarity between the written language and the spoken form is referred to as ‘isomorphism’ (Tauli 1977).
