Abstract :

By exploring how indexical signals interact with other semiotic components, as well as how social context affects their interpretation, this study fills a research gap and examines the complex function that these signs play in influencing meaning-making within communication. The present study employed theme analysis to look at public speeches, social media posts, and ads that promoted environmental awareness and community involvement.  Themes about social action and environmental responsibility evolved, along with the identification of indexical signals.  A comparative examination showed that although basic themes were shared across societies, how particular indications were interpreted differed according to social and cultural situations.  Indexical signals interact with other semiotic components to create meaning, as demonstrated by semiotic analysis. This study underscores the significance of indexicality in communicating complex concepts and the necessity of employing culturally sensitive communication techniques.  These results might be useful in developing messages that effectively encourage global community involvement and environmental awareness.

---

Keywords :

Communication, Indexicality, Semiotics, Social context and cultural differences

---

References :

1. Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618284

2. Androutsopoulos, J. (2006). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-9841.2006.00286.X
3. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words (Vol. 88). Oxford University Press.https://doi.org/10.7788/figurationen.2013.14.2.7

4. Bamberg, M. G. W. (1997). Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1–4), 335–342. file:///Files/8A/8ACF2BF0-7861-4F48-8406-0EE5ED269D4B.pdf
5. Baron, N. S. (2010). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313055.001.0001
6. Barthes, R. (1964). Elements of semiology. Hill and Wang.https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/barthes.htm

7. Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text. S. Heath, (Ed.). Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 37(2), 235–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/429854
8. Barthes, R. (2017). History and sociology of clothing: Some methodological observations. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.3406/AHESS.1957.2656
9. Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19(1), 59–88. https://www.academia.edu/download/36870516/Bauman_Briggs_90.pdf
10. Berry, V., & Rose, T. (1996). Black noise: Rap music and black culture in contemporary America. American music, 14(2), 231–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/3052359
11. Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2011). Language and super diversity. Diversities,13(2), 1-21.https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000214772

12. Blommaert, J. (2018). Durkheim and the Internet: Sociolinguistics and the sociological imagination. Bloomsbury Academic. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/58811/9781350055216.pdf?sequence=1
13. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be (com) ing a knowing researcher. International journal of transgender health, 24(1), 1-6.https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597

14. Briciu, A. (2024). Indexicals and communicative affordances. Synthese, 203(3), 100.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04542-x

15. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2013-0005
16. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7((4-5)), 585–614. https://escholarship.org/content/qt5tk670n8/qt5tk670n8.pdf
17. Calder, J. (2021). Whose indexical field is it? The role of community epistemology in indexing social meaning. In C. Coons., G. Chronis., S. Pierson, & V. Govindarajan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Meeting of the Texas Linguistics Society (39(1), 9-55). Texas Linguistics Society. http://tls.ling.utexas.edu/2021/TLS_2021_Proceedings.pdf#page=42
18. Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2003). Language and sexuality. Cambridge University Press.
19. Chandler, D. (2022). Semiotics: The basics. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. https://www.routledge.com/Semiotics-The-Basics/Chandler/p/book/9780367726539
20. Chouliaraki, L. (2013). The ironic spectator : Solidarity in the age of post-humanitarianism. Polity.
21. Christiansen, M. H., & Kirby, S. (2003). Language evolution: Consensus and controversies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 300–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00136-0
22. Coulthard, M. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. In C. N. Condlin (Ed.), An introduction to Discourse Analysis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835884
23. Cresswell, T. J. (1992). In place/out of place: Geography, ideology and transgression. University of Wisconsin. https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/semiotics-of-emoji-9781474282000/
24. Culpeper, B. J. (2012). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.
25. Deely, J., & Sebeok, T. A. (1982). Introducing semiotic: Its history and doctrine. In A. Thomas . (Ed.), Indiana University Press. https://books.google.com/books/about/Introducing_Semiotics.html?id=fSzt6_-ce-gC
26. Djonov, E., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2017). The power of semiotic software : A critical multimodal perspective. In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739342-39
27. Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20(3), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01362.x
28. Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810190
29. Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical fieldl. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-9841.2008.00374.X
30. Eckert, P. (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145828
31. Escobar-Rodríguez, T., & Carvajal-Trujillo, E. (2014). Online purchasing tickets for low cost carriers: An application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model. Tourism Management, 43, 70–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TOURMAN.2014.01.017
32. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. In You Tube (p. 1). Longman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w_5riFCMGA
33. Feld, S. (2012). Sound and sentiment: Birds, weeping, poetics, and song in Kaluli expression, 3rd edition with a new introduction by the author. Duke University Press.
34. Fiske, J. (2011). Television culture. Routledge.https://www.routledge.com/Television-Culture/Fiske/p/book/9780415596473

35. Forceville, C. (2009). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In C. Forceville, & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives (Issue August). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197761.5.379
36. Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009). Multimodal metaphor. C. Forceville, & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.). Mouton De Gruyter. https://books.google.com/books/about/Multimodal_Metaphor.html?id=dodSTYriz2IC
37. Friederici, A. D. (2017). Language in our brain: The origins of a uniquely human capacity. MIT Press.
38. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press. https://www.pennpress.org/9780812211122/forms-of-talk/
39. Goffman, E. (2023). The presentation of self in everyday life. Social Theory Re-Wired, 450–459. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003320609-59
40. Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita, & L. Erlbaum (Eds.), Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet (pp. 217–241). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607744
41. Gray, J. (2010). Show sold separately: Promos, spoilers, and other media para texts. New York University Press.
42. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press.
43. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.
44. Hanks, J. (2015). Language teachers making sense of exploratory practice. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 612–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814567805
45. Hanks, W. F. (1990). Referential practice: Language and lived space among the maya. University of Chicago Press.
46. Heritage, J. (2013). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. John Wiley & Sons.
47. Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805080.016
48. Hickok, G. (2009). Eight problems for the mirror neuron theory of action understanding in monkeys and humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(7), 1229–1243. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21189
49. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology. Routledge.
50. Holmes, J., & Wilson, N. (2022). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Routledge.
51. Hoskins, J. (2013). Biographical objects: How things tell the stories of peoples’ lives. (Vol. 01). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315022598
52. Huppatz, D. J. (2011). Roland Barthes, mythologies. Design and Culture, 3(1), 85–100.https://doi.org/10.2752/175470810X12863771378833

53. Hyland, K. (2018). Metadiscourse : Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Academic.https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350063617

54. Jewitt, C., & Oyama, R. (2001) Visual meaning: A social semiotic approach. In T. Van Leeuwen, & C. Jewitt (Eds.), A hand book of visual analysis (pp. 134-136). SAGE Publications Ltd.https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857020062

55. Jones, R. H. (2009). Technology and sites of display. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis (pp. 114–126). http://techstyle.lmc.gatech.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Jones-2009.pdf
56. Keane, W. (2003). Semiotics and the social analysis of material things. Language and Communication, 23(3–4), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00010-7
57. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge University Press.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572

58. Kirby, S., & Christiansen, M. H. (Eds.). (2003). Language evolution. Oxford University Press.https://haskinslabs.org/sites/default/files/files/Reprints/HL1289.pdf

59. Kopytoff, I. (2001). The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as process. In D. Miller (Ed.), Critical concepts in social sciences (pp. 9–33). Routledge.
60. Kralemann, B., & Lattmann, C. (2013). Models as icons: Modeling models in the semiotic framework of Peirce’s theory of signs. Synthese, 190, 3397-3420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0176-x
61. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Arnold. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130000798172506880
62. Kress, G., & Van Leuween, T. (2020). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
63. Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X970161002
64. Leiss, W., Kline, S., Jhally, S., & Botterill, J. (2005). Social communication in advertising: Consumption in the mediated marketplace.
65. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X0903400208
66. Lu, Y., & Kroon, S. (2024). Elder Biaoqing: Investigating the indexicalities of memes on Chinese social media. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 20(1), 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2024-2005
67. Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2023). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. http://digital.casalini.it/9781529783759
68. Marwick, A., & Lewis, R. (2017). Media manipulation and disinformation online. Data & Society. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2017-05/apo-nid135936.pdf
69. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press. https://pages.ucsd.edu/~bkbergen/cogs200/McNeill_CH3_PS.pdf
70. Merrell, F. (2000). Change through signs of body, mind and language. Waveland Press.https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130000794644254336

71. Mey, J. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Blackwell. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130282272187587072
72. Miller, D. (2005). Materiality: An introduction. In D. Miller (Ed.), NBER Working Papers (pp.1-50). Duke University Press.
73. Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PRAGMA.2014.04.004
74. Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27(1), 64-77.https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044

75. Murgiano, M., Motamedi, Y. S., & Vigliocco, G. (2021). Situating language in the real-world:
76. The role of multimodal iconicity and indexicality. Journal of Cognition, 4(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.113
77. Myers, G. (2022). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge . University of Wisconsin Press. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/landmarks/myers/
78. Nunberg, G. (1993). Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(1), 1–43.https://www.jstor.org/stable/25001498

79. Page, R. (2012). The linguistics of self branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 181-201. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1750481312437441
80. Pennycook, A. (2010). Critical and alternative directions in applied linguistics. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.2104/aral1016
81. J., Denis, P., Gilleron, R. & Brunellière, A. (2023). Exploring category structure with contextual language models and lexical semantic networks. Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Dubrovnik, Croatia, (2269-2282). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.06942
82. Saussure, F. de. (2011). Course in general linguistics In P. Meisel, & H. Saussy (Eds.). Columbia University Press.
83. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. Routledge.
84. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
85. Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (2009). Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. Routledge.
86. Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23(3–4), 193–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2
87. Sonesson, G. (2012). The foundation of cognitive semiotics in the phenomenology of signs and meanings. Intellectica, 58(2), 207-239. https://ard.bmj.com/content/71/3/334.short
88. Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Language Management (pp. 1-9). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511626470
89. Steffensen, S. V., Thibault, P. J., & Cowley, S. J. (2010). Living in the social meshwork: The case of health interaction. In S. J. Cowledy, J. C. Major, S. V. Steffensen , A. Dinis (Eds.), Signifying bodies: Biosemiosis, interaction and health, (pp. 207-244),. Portuguese Catholic University.
90. Tagg, C. (2018). Exploring digital communication: Language in action. New Delhi: Routledge.
91. Thibault, P. J. (2011). First-order languaging dynamics and second-order language: The distributed language view. Ecological Psychology, 23(3), 210–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2011.591274
92. Tomasello, M. (2005). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000135676.06664.40
93. Traugott, E. C. (1975). William Labov, sociolinguistic patterns: Conduct and Communication 4. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972. Language in Society, 4(1), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004528
94. Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as social interaction: Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, Vol. 2. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-08897-000
95. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. SAGE Publications Ltd.
96. Van Leeuwen, T. J. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986
97. Van Niekerk, A. (2018). The use of indexical signs, symbols and icons in print advertising communication. Communitas, 23, 108-123. https://doi.org/10.18820/24150525/Comm.v23.7
98. Wodak, R. (2014). Critical discourse analysis. In C. Leung, &  V. Street (Eds.), The Routledge companion to English studies. (pp. 302-316). Routledge. http://www.cadaad.org/
99. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. SAGE Publications, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020

• Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods for critical discourse analysis (pp. 1, 33). Sage Publications, Ltd.
• Zlatev, J. (2015). Cognitive semiotics. In P. Trifonas, (Ed.), International Handbook of Semiotics, (pp.1043–1067). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9404-6_47