ABSTRACT
We’re driving down a city street, and we’re approaching a red traffic light. What do we do? We stop. If we’re driving down the same street, and the traffic light is green, we don’t stop. If we’re driving down the same street again and see an amber light, we might prepare to stop, or perhaps we put our foot on the accelerator, so we don’t have to stop at yet another set of traffic lights. Most of us do the same thing, not simply because it’s the law but because we know the meanings of the coloured lights. We know the system. But it’s a very simple, two-level semiotic system. A particular meaning is realised directly by one of the colours of the lights-‘stop’ is realised by red, ‘not stop’ is realised by green, and ‘prepare to stop’ is realised by amber (cf. Eggins, 2004: 17; Halliday, 2003: 4). But there are no patterns of colours, no combinations of colours forming a structure to make alternative meanings. If there were a patterning of colours, there would be a grammar of traffic lights, but then we would have to learn that grammar, which might result in chaos on the streets. So, how do other non-verbal systems, including movement in space, work? Are they semiotic systems which operate much the same as traffic lights, or are they semogenic systems like language, which has a clear grammatical stratum?
