Preface

Russian formalism generally associated linguistics with poetics, and Jacobson's theory of the six elements of language, presented in his essay Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics (1960), is one of the leading ones. This paper will therefore introduce, critique, and reinterpret his theory.

Part I

Introduction to Jacobson's six-factor theory. In brief, it is two diagrams showing the six elements of language and the six functions of language respectively.

The poetic function is the function that language has as an element of Message, and therefore Jacobson considers the study of the poetics of this function to be an integral part of linguistics.

Part II

Critique of his six-factor theory.

1 At the beginning of his essay, Jacobson argues that poetics is the leading place of literary studies because it helps us to distinguish between poetry and non-poetry. But poetic function is present in both poetry and non-poetry. And there are also many other functions applied in poetry than just poetic functions. Thus, what he calls the poetic function later in the essay does not help us to distinguish between the two, and therefore does not fulfill the task he proposes at the beginning.

2 Jacobson himself realizes this, adding that it is the text that has the poetic function as its dominant function that is the poem. But this addition likewise does not stand up to examination and does not even explain the examples he himself gives.

3 The definition that the function of language as Message is poetic, is therefore problematic. Jacobson tries unsuccessfully to sew together this view from formalism with the linguistic framework of his genius.

Part III

A reinterpretation of the theory of the six elements.

Inspired by a sentence from Zirmonsky, quoted in Steiner's book, that every chapter of theoretical poetics should correspond to a chapter from the science of language', then corresponding to Jacobson's six elements and six functions of linguistics, there are also the six elements and six functions of literature. As the diagram shows.

To conclude, the four diagrams are put together, literary and linguistic, in an isomorphic framework.

Summary

Just one more step is needed to get a new interpretative based on Jacobson's. This proves that Jacobson’s thought is still very promising and only needs to be cleared of some clearly erroneous ideas. The same is true of formalism, which may be able to revive itself by purging some ideas and expounding some of its heritage in depth. But this is for later research to prove.

(Colour and Texture Descriptors for Visual Recognition: A Historical Overview)

DOI:10.5840/AJS201931448Corpus ID: 168165629

Packing in Meaning: Applying Jakobson’s Model of Communication to Packaging Design by M. Lemon

Published 2018 in Art，The American Journal of Semiotics

From the level of the sign to culture, the practice of semiotic analysis concerns the construction and description of models. Within commercial semiotics, a few of these models (notably Greimas's semiotic square and Raymond Williams’s concept of residual, dominant, and emergent), have proven particularly useful due to their ability to summarise cultural phenomena in a form readily digested and applied by marketing professionals to their brands.

Packaging design is a frequent subject of commercial semiotic inquiry and draws on a wide array of semiotic phenomena ranging from visuals, to textures, and the lived experience of interacting with the package.

How can we approach a comprehensive understanding of the potential of packaging design to communicate meaning? In what ways can we say that a package can "mean", and how as semioticians can we help analyze and create novel packaging solutions that further brand meaning? Roman Jakobson's general model of linguistic communication proposes a diverse array of cross cultural communicative functions for language, but is not currently a key model in the commercial semiotician’s toolkit.

This paper proposes that this linguistic model has the potential to be translated into the multisensory realm of general semiotics and applied to packaging design. It will particularly consider how Jakobson’s six communicative functions (emotive, referential, poetic, conative, metalingual, and phatic) are relevant to the numerous non-linguistic sign systems (colour, texture, shape, typography, imagery, material etc.) employed in packaging.

In so doing, this paper proposes a system for understanding the meaning potential of packaging design as not only an aesthetic vehicle but also a strategic tool for the cross-cultural development and communication of brand identity.