making. Social semiotic theory argues that people do not have direct access to
language (and other modes) as a system, rather that the meaning of signs is made by
them in contexts. Sign use is a process of people’s choices from a network of choices:
in which the sign maker selects one resource (meaning potential) over another
(Halliday, 1978, 1985). The receiver of a sign, in the process of interpreting it, is also
involved in this selection of meaning potentials as she or he re-makes the sign.
Meanings are realised through the selection of meaning potentials from the networks
of options offered by modes in specific contexts. This highlights the agency of the
sign maker as she or he is involved in selecting the most apt signifier for their
signified in a particular context. From such a perspective the relationship between
signifier and signified can no longer be theorised as an arbitrary one. Signs are
understood as motivated by the interest of the sign maker and the social forces
operating on them.
People’s choice of semiotic resources (meaning potentials) in a specific context is
shaped by their individual social experiences and their acculturation into the social
conventions of society - in other words the choices people make are socially
constrained. Nonetheless, there is some freedom of choice depending on the social
context, the power of the sign maker, the sign-maker’s ‘willingness’ (or power) to
bear the consequences of resisting convention, and the degree to which the sign
maker has been inducted into these conventions.
There are many common-sense examples that support the argument that signs are
arbitrary and these are challenged by the theorisation of the motivated sign. For
instance, Kress argues that Wittgenstein’s scenario of a button standing for a lost
pawn in a game of chess proving the possibility of substitution of one signifier for
another is problematic (Kress, 1997:92). If five chess pieces of different game value
were lost he suggests that they could not be substituted with five buttons of equal
size. A distinguishing feature such as the size of the buttons would be needed in order
to signify the different values of the chess pieces. The players could then establish the
50