One of the benefits of studying (and practicing) Social Semiotics is understanding the foundations of communication, learning and messaging. One would think that such knowledge and study would matter to Safety, apparently not.

The language of ‘Social Semiotics’ was first introduced by Halliday (1978) (Language as Social Semiotic, The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning – https://archive.org/details/languageassocial0000hall/page/n7/mode/2up). Halliday considered all text, discourse, signs and symbol systems as modes of making meaning.

In order to help your understanding, a map might help:

 If the aspects of this map are not considered in your communication, it probably will be ineffective. All features of this map need to be considered in any communication analysis.

There’s no secret about why so many efforts at communication don’t work.

 Linguistic analysis focuses on text and discourses, such as grammar, vocabulary and semantics. Functional analysis (Halliday) examines the same text and discourses and how they inform, entertain and express emotions. Critical analysis looks at ways in which text and discourses reflect and shape power and social identities. Conversational analysis explores how the same text and discourse as spoken influences meaning.

In Social Semiotics, all aspects of communication matter as does their congruence. Everything from: text, discourse, images, metaphor, grammar, gesture, ritual, symbol, voice, tone, sound, power in text, ethical intent, myth, moral meaning, visual meaning and semiosis matter.

Each mode of communication conveys meaning and is interpreted. Unless one considers the multimodality of communication it won’t ‘connect’ or have effect and often contradicts purpose. We see this all the time in safety where images are used that contradict text.

The map above shows many aspects of text/discourse that need to be considered in communication and message making. No text, discourse, image or speech is neutral, objective or self-evident. All communication is subjective, including the meaning of words. All language has meaning in context and cannot be known definitionally by simply going to a dictionary. All semiotics/myth has a history and is not neutral or, can be made to mean whatever you want.

Yes, it’s is highly complex. But, there is no great reward in safety by keeping one’s head in the sand. This is why transdisciplinary thinking is critical for safety. Unless one steps outside the comforts of safety and explores other disciplines, nothing will change or be sustainable.

Presenting anything doesn’t achieve what is intended without consideration of all that is accompanied in social semiotics.

This is why so much of what is communicated in safety promotes its opposite.

Communication without design has little chance of success or effectiveness.

You can’t talk about concern, care and helping to symbols of violence. Well, you can try, but we know the medium is the message and such lack of strategy just ends up promoting violence. You can’t use images of misogyny whilst at the same time promoting care about women. The medium is the message and what people learn is that women are devalued and presented as objects. You can’t use discourse of ‘differently’ when the core message promotes traditional safety, deontology and systems. Well, you can try, but what people perceive is just more of the same, performance, performance and performance in traditional safety. You can’t use metaphors of measurement, slogans and claim you have some ‘new view’, but in the end people just hear marketing for traditional safety. Repeating the word ‘learning’, without a methodology of learning, doesn’t promote learning. Training is not learning. If the images promoting learning are anchored to an image of the brain, then whatever follows is NOT about learning. The list could go on.

Understanding multimodality is critical for effective communication. Similarly, it is important for critical thinking.

You can begin your journey in improving communication in safety by ditching traditional safety language, text and images. Try stepping out of reading safety texts and start reading in other disciplines.

If you want to learn about culture or ethics, don’t read a safety text on culture or ethics. If you want to communicate effectively about safety, don’t read sources from safety engineering. Indeed, if ‘safety’ is the adjective in the text, read something else.

If you want to learn how to think critically about communication and become effective in your work in safety, there are still places at the SPoR Convention in Canberra in September (https://spor.com.au/spor-convention-2025/).

 Social semiotics and multimodality are the core business of SPoR.

Or, here are a few readings to get you started in understanding the challenges of communication: