Handbook of Semiotics

Chronemics: The Semiotics of Time

Chronemics: The Semiotics of Time Chronemics, the semiotics of time, is a relatively recent branch of semiotics, although concern with the temporal dimension ofhuman behavior and existence is as old as philosophy. As a branch of semiotics, chronemics is closely related to proxemics, the semiotics of space. But the semiotics of time transcends the field of nonverbal communication in also being fundamental to all processes of semiosis. The basic questions are whether the dimension of time is emic or only etic to communication, whether there is such a thing as a chronemic sign, and at what levels time could be relevant to semiosis. 1. The Scope of Chronemics Early considerations of the semiotics of time are outlined in the context of Hall's proxemics. From the study of space, Hall's (1959) cultural anthropological studies gradually shifted to the study of time (Hall 1976; 1983). Chronemics as an extension of proxemics was explicitly proposed by Poyatos (1972; 1976) and Bruneau (1977; 1980; 1985). Bruneau defines chronemics as "the study of human temporality as it relates to human communication at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and socio-cultural levels of ontogenetic integration and interaction" (1985: 286). Timeexperiencing accordingly involves the following levels: "biological, physiological, perceptual , objective, conceptual, psychological, social, and cultural" (ibid.). This scope of chronemics indicates its transdisciplinary character. Chronemics is thus closely related to studies in time which have been developed within philosophy (Whitrow 1961, Kummel 1962, Gonseth 1964, Gale 1968, Mellor 1981), psychology (Fraisse 1963, Doob 1971), psychopathology (Yaker et aI., eds. 1972), linguistic and literary studies (see 4.2), sociology (Zerubavel 1981) and social history (Wright 1968), anthropology, and many other transdisciplinary contexts (see the following anthologies : Meyer, ed. 1964, Fraser, ed. 1966, Fraser &: Muller, eds. 1972, Fraser &: Lawrence, eds. 1975, Patrides, ed. 1976, Fraser et aI., eds. 1978, and Fraser 1988). 2. The Chronemic Code Chronemic analysis presupposes an emic approach to time. Cultures have developed different attitudes toward time which have been interpreted as chronemic codes. 2.1 Emie and Etie Time So-called objective time, which is measurable in terms of seconds, minutes, and hours, forms 2. THE CHRONEMIC CODE • 415 the etic (cf. Structuralism 1.1.3) frame of reference of chronemic research. The study of time becomes emic when it is concerned with culture -specific and thus arbitrary segmentations and conceptualizations of the temporal continuum . (For the dialectics between objective and cultural time, see Bruneau 1980: 102). Hall distinguishes between technical, formal, and informal time (1959: 127-45). Technical time may be measured by chronometrically exact methods. It is thus etic time. Formal time is the system of measurement which in a given culture has been developed to regulate the course of work and public life. It is structured by means of calendars and clocks. Informal time consists of less precise, impressionistic units such as "soon," "a while," or "later" which vary much more with situations and cultures. Both formal and informal time are thus emic frames of reference of chronemics. 2.2 Is There a Chronemic System? Hall even believes in the possibility of an emic segmentation of time in cultural systems (1959: 96, 130). His model of chronemic analysis proposes three segmental units in analogy to the model of language: isolates, sets, and patterns. These units are described as the "phonemes," the "morphemes," and the "sentences" of a chronemic message (but see 3.). According to Hall, Americans' informal time consists of a "vocabulary" of eight or nine sets (from "very short" to "forever"), while for the Mediterranean Arab informal time is restricted to only three sets ("no time," "now," and "forever") (ibid.: 135-37). The basis of this particular analysis may be questionable in detail, but the differences referred to illustrate that chronemic codes may underlie culturally different attitudes toward time. 3. The Semiotic Function of Time According to Hall "time talks" and "speaks more plainly than words" (1959: 15). These metaphors illustrate the undeniable communicative function of time. But can units of time ever be autonomous signs? Against Hall's assumption of time as a system of relatively autonomous signifiers within a chronemic code, the follOWing considerations suggest that time can be a system only of distinctive but not of autonomously Signifying units. 3.1 Time as an Indexical Sign Since Leibniz (cf B6hme 1974: 202-204), philosophers have acknowledged the relatiVity of time. Time is a one-dimensional phenomenon (Bunn 1981: 108-132) which never occurs in any absolute or isolated form. Instead, time is always perceived as a manifestation...