Semiotic Evolution of "Rumor" in the Framework of Discursive Systems

Document Type : Research

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Language and Literature, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS)

Abstract

   INTRODUCTION
Signs can be placed not only in the construction of a sentence (speech) but also in an abstract linear system, with the difference that in speech, signs are not randomly placed in the order of accompaniment, but that production is said to be affected always from the characteristics of the human subjects (mediators or operators).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The effect of mediators on the arrangement of signifiers in the process of speech and texts makes us use multiple and more complex variables in the analysis of signs and discursive systems. The sensory-perceptual mood of the sign user, affected by various phenomena and variables, affects the conditions for the production and reception of signs. These conditions make it necessary to consider different cognitive and emotional categories in analysis. These variables can be represented on the axis of tension and on the square of the discursive systems.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The question is: what is the difference between the production and reception of signs in both normal and abnormal situations (such as rumors) in terms of tension and discursive systems. The most common form of sign production and use can be found in a programmatic and logical discursive system. To the extent that we deviate from the normal situation, the ground is prepared for drawing an accident discursive system. The statement that is produced in the normal state of the signs can be considered equivalent to "news" in the conventional sense, and therefore the opposite point must be interpreted as "false" which, if prevalent, is considered a "rumor". The mechanism of overcoming the situation when "enunciation" can be considered as a rumor in the system of signification is the subject of the present study. The purpose of this article is to explain the mechanism of evolution of signs in the process of discursive evolution in which rumors are produced and transformed. The research hypothesis is that the phenomenon of rumor causes the emergence of an accidental discursive system. In this discursive system, due to the heavy reduction  in cognitive categories, the level of tension is at the highest level and the signs are very fluid. In order to examine this situation in a suitable literary text, a text called “The Power of the Rumor” was chosen. This text  has been produced and reproduced in various forms, itself as a rumor, in the context of the internet digital space. This text is like a rumor without evidence and has taken a different form in each reproduction. It seemed that this text will better show us the natural mechanism of producing and receiving a signal that carries the concept of rumor.

CONCLUSION

The results show that there is a set of factors that the process of discourse is always influenced by : the energies that affect the linguistic production of the narrator, the scope of vision, the perspective on which the linguistic production is formed, the linguistic challenges that determine the degree of tension in linguistic productions, the image that the narrator has of himself, his partner or discursive rival at all times, constantly changing individual methods or manners of speech that are formed based on cultural and social backgrounds, linguistic capabilities, temporal and spatial conditions, etc., and cognitive, emotional, aesthetic, sensory-perceptual elements. According to research findings, rumors, based on a sensory-perceptual error, in the form of an event, create an accidental discursive system. In the face of such a situation, ordinary people whose actions are more emotionally-reactive, respond in a rejectionist selective approach, but specialist subjects, whose actions are more rational, with an interactive approach, in the form of a communicative respond. There is a causal relationship between the cognitive state and the emotional stress of the actors and their actions and value systems. In this way, the ordinary people, with limited knowledge and under intensive emotional tension, draw an absolute and closed value system, but a specialized subject, with extensive recognition and under low emotional stress, illustrates democratic and open value system. According to the results of this study, accidental discursive system is at the beginning of this process and a programmatic discursive system in its precursor. Ordinary people, due to the lack of cognition and foresight, provide digital logic and strengthen the risky aspect of the system, However, the elites and specialized subjects, based on analog logic, gradually evolve the process of evolution of signs which they direct it till the final goal.
According to the research’s results, rumor is a semantic defect produced by the narrator whose physical and sensory-perceptual base is defective (defect, disease) and occurs as an accident. Bringing back the discourse to its ordinary logical situation needs a rational management.

Keywords


  1. Allport, G. W. & Postman, L. (1995). The psychology of rumor. (S. Dabestani, Trans.) (2nd ed). Tehran: Soroush.
  2. Allport, F. H., & Lepkin, M. (1945). Wartime rumors of waste and special privilege: why some people believe them. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 40 (1), 3-36.
  3. Backer, C. (2005). Like Belgain chocolate for the universal mind: interpersonal and media gossip from an evolutionary perspective (Unpublished doctoral  dissertation). Universiteit Gent, Gent, Belgium.
  4. Bakhtin, M. (1998). Bakhtinian dialogic. (D. Karimi, Trans.), Tehran: Markaz [In Persian].
  5. Ben-Ze'ev, A. (1994). The vindication of gossip. In R. F. Goodman, & A. Ben-Ze'ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 11- 24). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
  6. Bordiou, P. (2009). Outline of a theory of practice.  (M. Mardiha, Trans.) Tehran: Naghsh o Negar. [In Persian].
  7. Chua, A. Y. K. and Banerjee, S. (2016). Linguistic predictors of rumor veracity on the Internet. Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists. IMECS 2016, March 16 - 18, Hong Kong. Retrieved from
  8. http://www.iaeng.org/publication/IMECS2016/IMECS2016_pp387-391.pdf 
  9. Dehghan Shad, H. (2011). Circulation of political rumors on the Internet. Media Studies, 14, 41-49. [In Persian].
  10. Dehkoda, A. A. (1998). Loghat nameh Dehkhoda (Dictionary). Tehran: University of Tehran Press. [In Persian].
  11. Dunbar, R.I.M. (1996). Grooming, gossip and the evolution of language. London: Faber and Faber Limited.
  12. Eder, D., & Enke, J. L. (1991). The structure of gossip: opportunities and constraints on collective expression among adolescents. American Sociological Review, 56, 494-508.
  13. Emler, N. (1994). Gossip, reputation and social adaption. In R. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 119–40). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
  14. Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The casr for case. In B. Emmon and R. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1-88). New York: Holt- Rinehart- Winston.
  15. Fontanille J. (2004). Practiques sémiotiques. Paris: PUF.
  16. Fontenille et, Z. (1998). Tension et signification. Sprimont-Belgique: Pierre Mardaga.
  17. Greimas AJ., & Courtés J. (1993). Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Paris: Hachette.
  18. Greimass, A. D. J. (2010). De l'imperfection. (H. R. Shairi, Trans.). Tehran: Elm. [In Persian].
  19. Karim, J., Berente, N., & Leslie King, J. (2017). Digital and analog logics: An analysis of the discourse on property rights and information goods. The Information Society, 33 (3), 119-132. DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2017.1294125.
  20. Landowski, E. (2005). "Les interactions risquées", Nouveaux Acts Semmiotiques. Limoges: Pulim.
  21. Lapiere, R. T., and Fransworth, P. R. (1936). Social psychology. New York: MgGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
  22. Lotman, Y, ([1984]2005). "On the semiospher", Trans. By Wilma Clark. Sign Systems Studies, 33 (1), 205-229.
  23. Maaref, M., Farahani, F., & Mirzaei, M. (2016). The role of rumors in war from the perspective of the Quran.Journal of Insight and Islamic Education,37, 1-19 [In Persian].
  24. Martin, B., Ringham, F. (2006) Key terms in semiotics. London: Continuuem.
  25. Mobini Dehkordi, M., & Pour Khoei, M. S. (2006). An introduction to strategic and operational planning. Rahbord Tousee, 2 (6), 187-202. [In Persian].
  26. Moein, M. B. (2019). Analyzing four spatial language regimes based on interactive and semiotic regimes of Eric Landowski. Language Related Research, 10 (5), 49-72 [In Persian].
  27. Nemati, L. (2016). Effects of misinformation and gossip on the differentiation of Muslims. Studies in Psychology and Educational Sciences, 2 (2), 234-245 [In Persian].
  28. Rezai, V. (2010). Passive constructions in Persian: A new perspective. Researches in Linguistics,2(2), 19-34. [In Persian].
  29. Sadeghi, M. H. & Nowroozi, M. (2011). A critical research in Iranan stock exchange disclosure system”. Private Law Studies Quarterly, 1(2), 131-149 [In Persian].
  30. Safaei Nejad, G. (2016).  Streaming in cyberspace, with an emphasis on social media. Modiryyat Resaneh. 26, 15-34[In Persian].
  31. Schmidt, A. (2004). “The rhetorical nature of gossip: A Burkean dramatistic perspective", Submitted to Dr. Dennis Ciesielski: History and theory of rhetoric. Platteville: University of Wisconsin.
  32. Shairi, H. R. (2002). Basics of semantics. Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian].
  33. Shairi, H. R. (2005). Studying tension in literary discourse. Researches in the World’s Contemporary Literature, 10 (25) ,187-204 [In Persian].
  34. Shairi, H. R. (2006). Semiotic analysis of discourse. Tehran, SAMT [in Persian].
  35. Shairi, H. R. (2009). Theoretical basics of discursive analysis: A semiotic approach. Pazhoohesh Nameh Farhangestan Honar, 12, 55-71 [In Persian].
  36. Shairi, H.R., & Torabi, B. (2012). The study of production condition and semantic perception in discourse interaction. Journal of Language Research,3 (2), 24-49 [In Persian].
  37. Sunstein, C. R., (2009). On rumors: How falsehoods spread, why we believe them, what can Be done. New York: NY, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  38. Torkaman, F., & Shahabi, Z. (2016). Rumor and the sociologic factors in its acceptance. Socio-cultural Strategy, 19, 191-216. [In Persian].
  39. Van Valin, R. D. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge University press.
  40. ttps://paad.ir/forum/viewtopic.php?t=322