'Journal of Academic Research for Humanities' is a double-blind, Peer-Reviewed, Open Accessed, International research journal based in Pakistan.
Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Semiotic Analysis of Non-Communicative Features in Title Texts of Two Renowned Pakistani Dramas : through Multi-Modality Framework


The following study tends to analyze the non-communicative features in the title texts of two renowned Pakistani drama serials with the help of a multi-modal framework. In applied linguistics, the non-communicative analysis of semiotic signs through images has been introduced by Kress and Leeuwen (1996). The study attempts to analyze the representative symbols of two Pakistani drama serials through multi-modality. It shows the visual communication of title pages through various non-rhetoric techniques. The selected title pages demonstrate the submissive roles of women in Pakistani society depicted through nonverbal communicative techniques by scholars. Both of the renowned Pakistani dramas were picturized in the year 2019. The study is qualitative and interpreted. The title pages of these dramas have been taken from Google images. The actual thematic philosophy behind each Pakistani drama is examined with its title text that shows various modes of vision, the overall frame of the characters, and different modes of actions for characters on the title page, and it is perceived through specific subtle philosophic art. The results from the findings have shown that the title texts on the cover page of the drama serials tend to demonstrate the submissive role of women in Pakistani society through the nonverbal communicative techniques and the subtle perceptive male dominancy shown in each of the drama serials. They try to sketch current women's status in male-dominated Pakistani society. This study can help future researchers to give their contributions differently following this topic through semiotic analysis of Pakistan's film industry.


Culture, Dramas, Framework, Multi-Modality, Semiotics



  1. Baltzer. (2001).Ulrich (ed.): Semiotik der Institutionen. Special issue of Zeitschriftfür Semiotik, 23, 3.
  2. Beasley, R. & Danesi, M. (2002). Persuasive Signs: the Semiotic of Advertising. Berlin: Moutor de Gruyter. Retrieved from http:// www. books. google.com/ books? id= as1r7kC.
  3. Bignell, J. (2002). Media Semiotics: an Introduction. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 31-78. Retrieved from http:// www. books. google.com/ books? id= MGom6ENJRLkI.
  4. Cassirer, A.: Philosophie der symbolischen Formen. 3 vols. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer 1923-29. English translation: The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. 3 vols. New Haven CT: Yale UP 1953-57.
  5. Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi, L.(1981).Feldman, Marcus W.: Cultural Transmission and Evolution. A Quantitative Approach. Princeton NJ: Princeton UP.
  6. Deely, N (1990). Basics of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
  7. Delin, A. (2000). The Language of Everyday Life. London: Sage.
  8. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1979). Human ethology: concepts and implications for the sciences of man. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2 (1):1-26.s
  9. Erikson, H. (1966). The ontogeny of ritualization in man. Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London, (Series B), 337–349.
  10. Giesecke, M (1988). Die Untersuchung institutioneller Kommuni kation. Opladen: West deutscher Verlag.
  11. Halliday, M. (1978), Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
  12. Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammer (2 nd edition). London: Edward Arnold. p.36.
  13. Herder, J (1984). Ideenzur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit [1784- 91].
  14. Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1988). Social Semiotics. New York: Cornel University Press.
  15. Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1988). Social Semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  16. Jakobson, R (1975). Coup d’oeilsur le développement de la sémiotique. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
  17. Keller, R. & Lüdtke, H. (1997). “Kodewandel” In: Posner/Robering/Sebeok 1997- 2004, Vol. 1. P. 414-435.
  18. Koch, A. (1998). “System and the Human Sciences”. In: Gabriel Altmann/W.A. Koch (eds.): Systems. New Paradigms for the Human Sciences. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, p. 671-755.
  19. Kress, G & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading Images, the Grammar of Visual Design (2 nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  20. Kress, G and van Leeuwen, T (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar Of VisualDesign. London: Routledge.
  21. Kress, G. & R. Hodge (1979), Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.
  22. Morris, W. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  23. Nöth, W(1990): Handbuch der Semiotik[1985]. Stuttgart: Metzler 2000. English translation
  24. Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
  25. Nyíri, J. (1988). “Tradition and Related Terms. A Semantic Survey”. In: Semiotische Berichte12, 1-2, p. 113-134.
  26. Ponzio, A (2004). “Ideology”. In: Posner/Robering / Sebeok 1997-2004, Vol. 4 (2004), Art 167.
  27. Posner, R & Reinecke, H. (1977). (eds.): Zeichenprozesse. Semiotische Forschung in den Einzelwissenschaften. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.
  28. Posner, R. (1985). “Nonverbale Zeichen in öffentlicher Kommunikation“. In: Zeitschrift fürSemiotik7, p. 235-271.
  29. Saussure, F (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne/Paris: Payot.
  30. Simpson, P. & Mayr, A. (2010). Language and Power. London: Routledge.
  31. Tylor, B. (1871). Primitive Culture. 2 vols. London: Murray 1871.