A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies
“Semiotics:” (Bijker and Law 1992:269)
“the word sociosemiotics is a pleonasm once it is clear that semiotics is not limited to signs; the key aspect of the semiotics of machines is its ability to move from signs to things and back. Setting:” (Bijker and Law 1992:269)
“the object of analysis is called a setting or a setup (in French a “dispositif”).” (Bijker and Law 1992:269)
_Semiotics: Latour and Akrich defines the semiotics as the study of how meaning is built out of infinite number of possibilities. It can be used on everything exists in someway, not just for signs. Settings, machines, bodies, and programming languages as well as texts. The semiotics of machines useful in terms their ability to go back and forth between signs.
Actant: things that are acting or causing others to make actions.
Actor: Latour and other researchers use the term interchangibly with actant. In that article Latour and Akrich denote that an actor is also actant additionally involves features of humans. So, we use the term actant for non-humans (technology) and actor for humans.
Script: Pre-defined (inscribed) social behaviours that are embedded into the artifact by the designers.
De-scription: It is the process of analysis of the inscribed script into artifact that is conducted by the researcher.
To make it clear an example from the “….” paper, for instance: Key holders are heavy and big in size at hotels. In such a case, The script of the artifact is to force customers to remember leaving the room keys to information desk. The analyst de-scribes the artifact as DO NOT FORGET TO LEAVE KEYS TO THE FRONT DESK. (note on p.269)_
“Actant: Whatever acts or shifts actions, action itself being defined by a list of performances through trials” (Bijker and Law 1992:269)
“an actor is an actant endowed with a character (usually anthropomorphic).” (Bijker and Law 1992:269)
“Script, description, inscription, or transcription:” (Bijker and Law 1992:269)
“the de-scription, usually by the analyst, is the opposite movement of the in-scription by the engineer, inventor, manufacturer, or designer” (Bijker and Law 1992:269)
“Shifting out, shifting in: Any displacement to another frame of reference that allows an actant to leave the ego.” (Bijker and Law 1992:270)
“the material shifting through which the matter of the expression is modified (from a sign FASTEN YOUR SEAT BELT, for instance, to an alarm)” (Bijker and Law 1992:270)
“the first direction is called shifting down (from signs to things) and the other shifting up (from things to signs).” (Bijker and Law 1992:270)
“Program of actions:” (Bijker and Law 1992:270)
“if I then write the instruction, “go to line 768,” not to a reader but to my computer, I am shifting the matter of the expression still more (machine language, series ofO and I, then voltages through chips); I do not count on humans at all to fulfill the action.” (Bijker and Law 1992:270)
“Antiprograms: All the programs of actions of actants that are in conflict with the programs chosen as the point of departure of the analysis;” (Bijker and Law 1992:271)
“Subscription or the opposite, de-inscription: The reaction of the anticipated actants-human and nonhumans-to what is prescribed or proscribed to them; according to their own antiprograms they either underwrite it or try to extract themselves out of it” (Bijker and Law 1992:271)
“or adjust their behavior or the setting through some negotiations.” (Bijker and Law 1992:271)
Subscription, De-inscription: The counter reaction of actants to the script of the artifact. De-inscription of the actants can be either by fine tuning the bahviour or they can take whatever useful to them. In a sense, one can say that implementantions of Blockchain in different concepts are a way of de-inscription of actors in the network. (note on p.271)
“Re-inscriptiott: The same thing as inscription but seen as a movement, as a feedback mechanism; it is the redistribution of all the other variables in order for a setting to cope with the contradictory demands of many antiprograms;” (Bijker and Law 1992:272)