The Semiotic Analysis of Meanings, Images, and Connotations in Atheistic Discourse: A Critical Study.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36602/famj.2024.17.4Keywords:
Atheistic text, semiotic discourse, social media platformsAbstract
This study presents practical models for the semiotic discourse of atheism found on social media platforms, specifically Facebook. It falls within the framework of critical analysis of semiotic discourse by examining and analyzing semiotic models used by certain Facebook pages to express specific ideas using signs, signals, symbols, and specific denotive and connotative meanings to spread atheistic thought. The main question of the study revolves around the tools used in the content of atheistic images, their connotations, meanings, and how they are utilized. To answer this question, the study reviews nine semiotic models with atheistic connotations published on Facebook pages. The study argues that these pages have employed various semiotic images in their atheistic discourse, utilizing religious iconography, attributes, settings, salient in the images. It also employs other tools that convey atheistic meanings, connotations, signals, and suggestive models within the sample images studied. The study also explores the importance of analyzing critical semiotic discourse in the field of humanities, from the perspective of using images as a language carrying semiotic symbols, meanings, and connotations that reflect the content according to social, political, cultural, and ideological contexts. Further, the study interprets the relationship between verbal and visual content found in atheistic image expressions.
References
سليمان، إبراهيم محمد (2019). مفهوم التحليل السيميائي، مجلة رواق الحكمة، جامعة الزاوية، العدد السادس.
علاق، فاتح (2009). التحليل السيميائي للخطاب الشعري في النقد العربي المعاصر (مستوياته وإجراءاته)، مجلة جامعة دمشق، العدد 25، المجل 1-2.
مبارك، محمد (2016). من البنية إلى العلامة: النص والخطاب في التحليل السيميائي، مجلة الباحث الإعلامي، جامعة بغداد، العدد 33-34.
J Thompson. (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology. Berkeley California : University of California Press.
M A. K Halliday. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language. Meaning Baltimore: University Park Press.
A A Berger. (2005). Media analysis techniques (3rd ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Barthes. (1977). Elements of semiology. New York: NY Hill and Wang. Retrieved from https://monoskop.org/File:Barthes_Roland_Elements_of_Semiology_1977.pdf
D Chandler. (2007). Semiotics: The Basics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Khaled Gulam، و Hamza Ethelb. (مارس, 2021). التوظيف الإعلامي واللغوي للخطاب السياسي في ليبيا. مجلة الإعلام والفنون، الصفحات 287-301.
Kress, & van , L. (2006). Reading images The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London UK: Routledge.
L McFall. (2004). Advertising: A cultural economy. SAGE Publications، صفحة 23.
R Barthes. (1988). The semiotic challenge. New York: NY: Hill and Wang.
S Hall. (2012). This means this, this means that: A user’s guide to semiotics (2nd ed.). London, UK: Laurence King Publishing.
U Eco. (1984). Semiotics and the philosophy of language. INBloomington: Indiana University Press.
V N Volosinov. (1986). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Boston: Harvard University Press.
van Dijk. (1998). Discourse and Ideology (Editorial), Discourse and Society. صفحة 192.
van, L., & Jewitt . (2014). Semiotics and iconography. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds). Handbook of visual analysis, pp. 92–118.






