NP Re: Semiotics (why a text can just be anything you want it to be)

[jbor at bigpond.com]

> The "No Smoking" sign isn't solely descriptive. It's imperative. The 
> author's intention was that the sign would stop smokers from smoking 
> in a vicinity (and, concomitantly, advertise to non-smokers that the 
> venue is smoke-free, augment the directives of staff, comply with 
> government regulations, validate subsequent legal action against 
> transgressors etc), not just that people would read and understand the 
> words. Ultimately, however, the author (interesting to think about who 
> is the actual "author" of the sign here also) of the sign has no 
> *control* over how a particular reader responds -- whether he or she 
> lights up or not, tells others to put out their cigarettes, reports 
> them to a staff member, whether he or she leaves the venue, writes to 
> the authority responsible for the rule, or whether he or she defaces 
> or rips the sign down, or how a staff member or law enforcement 
> officer responds to the sign in a specific context (i.e what the 
> individual reader *does* with the sign). Meaning can't be so 
> conveniently divorced from purpose.

For example, at a cafe I go to occasionally in the city for lunch there 
are tables on the footpath. One section is marked off by a "No Smoking" 
sign. As a non-smoker (lunching with other non-smokers) I interpret 
that sign to mean that the area will be free from smoke -- i.e. I do 
interpret it descriptively, as meaning that the tables there are in a 
"no smoking" section, and that thus there will be no smoke. Perhaps as 
a reformed smoker (though the interpretive leap isn't such a big one) I 
can also immediately recognise the other, imperative meaning of the 
sign -- i.e. as a direction to smokers not to smoke (or not to sit in 
that section if they are planning to smoke). The ambiguity of the 
message is probably deliberate, taking into account both factions of a 
target audience. Ashtrays on the tables in the other section can 
likewise be interpreted as an invitation to smoke there, or a warning 
that others will be smoking there.

The fact that the smokers are only about four feet away from the 
non-smokers in the open air does, however, give one cause to doubt the 
actual intention of the "author" of the sign. Compliancy would be my 
best guess.

best