A Social Semiotic Analysis of Mobile Devices: Interrelations of Technology and Social Habitus

The chapter carries out a social semiotic multimodal analysis of the affordances of mobile devices. Through the analysis of the hardware and software design and of the functionalities of a Nokia N95, taken as an instance of various smartphone models, the chapter analyses what types of representations are foregrounded and backgrounded by these devices and the abilities, which are more or less required for their use. The chapter concludes by detailing the social habitus, which is fostered through the introduction of mobile devices in our media landscape, together with some possible implications for educational contexts.

1. 1.

   The notion of affordances is being subject to a wide academic debate (for a critical review see Oliver 2005); here it is understood and used in social semiotics’ terms.

2. 2.

   We use the term ‘habitus’ as an extension of the notion of ‘habitus of learning’ (Kress and Pachler 2007). Cf. the definition in Chapter 1 in the present work.

3. 3.

   Some elements still give the clue of the phone functionality: the top row of the screen shows the network operator name in the centre; two inverted pyramids of little bars on the two sides refer to the connectivity signal and the battery level, analogously to other mobile/cell phones; on the left of the bottom row of the screen the label ‘messaging’ also indicates a typical functionality of mobile/cell phones. The left and right buttons have a green and red label respectively, the colours usually associated with the ‘call’ and ‘end call’ keys in ‘traditional’ mobile/cell phones. However, these elements of continuity with the mobile/cell phone are relatively few and small (one needs to look at them at a very close distance to see them) and thus less salient than the discontinuity in the overall shape of the device.

4. 4.

   On the Nokia Website, the N95 specifications page advertises the large screen size as the first hardware feature of the device.

5. 5.

   Although you can answer incoming calls and select your contacts and call them, which is a frequent way to make calls with a mobile/cell phone.

6. 6.

   The device can also slide in the opposite direction (i.e., instead of moving the front up and the back down, as in Fig. 7.2, the front moves down and the back moves up). This uncovers a set of buttons typical of a music player and turns the screen graphics orientation horizontally. The screen graphics turned horizontal forces the user to turn the device horizontally. Again the visual output drives the way the device has to be handled.

7. 7.

   Cf. in this regard also the issues on authorship as a consequence of text production by means of ‘downloading, mixing, cutting and pasting, sampling, re-contextualization’ (Kress 2008).

8. 8.

   Also the text label appears only for the selected thumbnail (as with pc software tools), so that it also signifies ‘selection’; yet the text label has a descriptive function as well (it verbally transduces the thumbnail).

9. 9.

   The same mobility of objects is in the so-called ‘Gallery’ section of the device, which displays the thumbnails of the representational artefacts (e.g., pictures and videos) that are stored in the device.

10. 10.

    A tourist means an outsider and a mass-consumer. Tourists see touristic places, they do touristic things, they eat touristic food. They experience a predetermined aspect of a place, the one detailed in tourist guides. In taking photos of the places they visit, tourists take ‘representational souvenirs’ of their visit already projecting themselves as ‘back home’. While this is of course a stereotyped idea of a tourist, stereotypes are the cultural homologues of socially constructed roles.

11. 11.

    This takes a stage further what has been discussed by Sharples et al. (2007, citing Banks 2004) ‘Personal technology now offers people the opportunity to preserve and organise digital records of their learning over a lifetime’.

12. 12.

    Cf. ‘literally represented in the information structure that supports the instructional discourse, rather than outside of it as an information consumer’ (Roschelle and Pea 2002).

13. 13.

    ‘We define appropriation as exploration, accommodation, assimilation and change for and in context-governed meaning-making with users/learners negotiating and evolving practices and meanings in their interaction with other users/learners, technologies and information’ (Cook et al. 2008).

Authors and Affiliations

1. Institute of Education, University of London, 20 Bedford Way, London, UK, WC1H 0AL

   Norbert Pachler

2. FB Erziehungswissenschaft/Humanwissenschaften, University of Kassel, Nora-Platiel-Str. 1–5, 34127, Kassel, Germany

   Ben Bachmair

3. London Metropolitan University, 166-220 Holloway Road, Tower Bldg. North Campus, London, UK, N7 8DB

   John Cook

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norbert Pachler .

Reprints and permissions

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Policies and ethics