Semiotic Analysis of South Park Cartoon Comedy Season I
Main Article Content
Abstract
This thesis is a semiotic analysis of a popular American cartoon comedy, South Park. Focusing on the first season of its airing, the study elaborates thirteen episodes of the series. The study is aimed to analyze the signs in the show and to describe the codes in which those signs are organized. The method in collecting the data is based on Berger’s concept of important sign and is analyzed with Chandler’s method of semiotic analysis, including the three-part model of codes. The study finds 21 important signs along with their meanings. In analyzing the data, the collected signs are analyzed by giving a brief explanation of the text as proposed by Chandler. Those sign is elaborated within Hjemslev’s order of signification to describe the message and value in two levels of meaning, denotation and connotation. After the main issues in the signs’ messages and values are collected, the analysis of codes is conducted by referring to those main issues. The study results in some sub-codes divided into three main codes. Social codes as the socio-cultural dimension of sign include social critique, human rights, as well as race and ethnic tolerance. Characterization and sarcastic humor are classified as textual codes, the textual medium in delivering messages and values. Social hypocrisy as the interpretative code reveals the general perspective in interpreting sign.
Keywords: semiotics, sign, codes, South Park
Article Details
References
Barthes, Roland. Writing degree zero and elements of semiology. Trans. C. Smith. Boston: Beacon, 1970.
Berger, Arthur Asa. “A Semiotic Analysis by Berger.†1 January 2000. DirectEssays.com. 15 October 2012 <http://www.directessays.com/viewpaper/9160.html >.
—. Sign in Contemporary Culture: An Introduction to Semiotics. New York & London: Longman, 1984.
Bolton, Robert. “The Media Report: South Park.†July 1998. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 21 August 2012 <http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/mediarpt /mstories/mr980723.htm>.
Bozell, L. Brent. South Park' Reconsidered, Sort Of. n.d. 23 April 2012 <http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns /entertainmentcolumn/1998/col19980211>.
Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics for Beginners. 2005. 12 September 2011 .
—. Semiotics: The basics. London: Routledge, 2002.
Channel4, Network. 100 Greatest Cartoons. 27 February 2005. 13 April 2012 <http://web.archive.org/web/20101022103843/http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/G/greatest /cartoons/results>.
Cobley, Paul. The Routledge Companion to Semiotics and Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge , 2001.
Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics. New York: Cornell University Press., 1976.
Eco, Umberto. A theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1976.
Fiske, John and John Hartley. Reading Television. London: Methuen, 1978.
Henderson, Jonas. “Black Men in the Urban Jungle: A Semiotic Analysis of Two Music Videos.†Visual Culture: The Reader (2006).
Jones, Vannessa E. “No offense, but ...†January 2008. The Boston Globe. 21 August 2012 <http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2008/01 /29/no_offense_but_/>.
Kriyanto, Rachmat. Teknik Praktis, Riset Komunikasi. Jakarta: Kencana, 2006.
Moriaty, Sandra. “Visual Semiotics and Production of meaning in Advertising.†Journal of Visual Communication Division of AEJMC (1995).
Netsler, Sebastian. “"Going down to South Park gonna learn something today". On popular culture as critical pleasure and pedagogical discourse.†9 November 2009. An introduction to the 2009 winter issue of Politics and Culture. 29 August 2012 <http://www.politicsandculture.org/issue/2009-issue-4/>.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. A course in general linguistics. Trans. W. Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958.
Sudaryanto. Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa. Yogyakarta: Duta Wacana University Press, 1993.
—. Metode Linguistik: Metode dan Aneka Teknik Pengumpulan Data. Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada University Press, 1988.
Zeidner, Lisa. TELEVISION/RADIO; A Study Guide for 'South Park'. 19 November 2000. 04 October 2012 <http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment /article.jsp?content=20080312_115131_115131/>.