Polysemy & Polyvalence.

         There are many meanings to a beginning and end, there is meaning in every aspect of our lives. Even in the things we do not understand, we seek to find meaning. The same thing applies in mass media. Understanding is different as every person is different. To understand is to take things from one perspective and interpret it to give it meaning, for example interpreting media texts. Polysemy is simply defined as "many meanings”. Polysemy was proposed and influenced by John Fiske and according to our textbook, it refers to the relative openness of media texts to multiple interpretations. There are three primary types of polysemy: a. Strategic Ambiguity – The intentional decision on the part of media makers to craft a vague, semantically rich text that is open to multiple interpretations. (Breaking Bad, for example) b. Resistive Reading – The creation of a textual meaning that is contrary to the meaning intended by the text’s author, creator or producer. (Similar to Hall’s notion of “Oppositional Reading”) c. Hermeneutic Depth – Critics recognize that the multiple meanings in a text is the source of its overall meaning. Media studies critics play with and problematize any apparent single meaning and show how it is in fact one of multiple meanings. Polyvalence occurs when audience members share understandings of the denotations of a media artifact but disagree about the valuation of these denotations to such a degree that they produce notably different interpretations. As the terms both seem similar, they are quite different. Polyvalence differs from polysemy in being that the difference between audience members is a connotation rather than being a meaning as a whole. According to Celeste Condit polysemy is seen as the theory that accounts for how audience agree with texts. Stating that polysemy are “compromises that give the relatively well-to-do more of what they want, bringing along as many economically marginal viewers as they comfortable can.”