Making Meaning With Sound

While power of sound in film may be underappreciated in academia, there is certainly not an absence of literature on the subject. Notable theorists include Michel Chion, Mary Anne Doane, Rick Altman, Béla Balázs, and Christian Metz. There are also a number of highly successful sound practitioners that have delved into the world of sound theory such as Walter Murch, Randy Thom, and Thomlinson Holman.

There is nearly a century’s worth of literature on sound theory and the derivation of meaning from sound. While these theories are diverse and plentiful, like many academic fields, they are often inaccessible for the average student. These theories can become complex, overcomplicated, and wordy to the point that they are no longer understandable or practical for established filmmakers, let alone a student filmmaker. 

For example, William Johnson has devised a system of examining the relationship between image and sound during every moment of a film. Johnson argues that “the basis of film is a continuous interaction between sound and image” (Johnson). To analyze these interactions, he developed a system that he calls “relations.” His analysis creates categories for every sound-image relation, no matter their significance to the film. While Johnson’s approach certainly has its merits and use cases, it simply is not a feasible avenue for a filmmaker looking to improve the intentionality of their use of sound. To this same point, typical sound theories (and most film theories in general) tend to focus on analyzing finished films rather than providing filmmakers practical tools and advice.

For both theoretical and practical purposes, Leo Murray provides us with the most universal framework for film sound. In Murray’s book Sound Design Theory and Practice, he examines sound design through the lens of semiotics. Applying semiotics to film was first pioneered by French film theorist Christian Metz and has been adopted by a number of theorists since. Murray's application is particularly useful to filmmakers due to its modernity, focus on connecting theory with practice, and use of the Peircean model rather than the traditional Saussurean model commonly used to analyze film. 

Semiotics is the study of signs and how we make meaning from them. Charles S. Peirce’s model is a three-way structure that describes the nature of the relationship between a signifier, an object, and an interpretant (Murray 65). The signifier (or sign) is “an object which stands for another, an object is “anything that can be thought,” and the interpretant is the conclusion drawn from the relationship (Peirce). For example, consider the sound of a lightning strike. Here, the sound of the thunder is the sign. This represents a storm, or the object. The conclusion that can then be drawn is that a storm is approaching. 

Signs can further be broken down into what Peirce calls classes. There are three classes: icon, index, and symbol. For the sake of simplicity, we will only talk in terms of sound. When a sound sign is iconic, it means that a sound has recognizable auditory qualities. A sound is indexical when it points to an object of origin. A sound is symbolic when it has a meaning understood by the listener. Almost all sounds in all situations fall into the three classes at the same time. Consider the sound of a clock tower ringing. It is iconic in the sense that it can be acoustically recognized as the sound of a clock tower bell. It is indexical in that it indicates the presence of a clock tower in the area. It is a symbol because it is understood by the listener that the bell ringing indicates that the time is at the top of an hour. 

Additionally, symbols are largely context dependent. Murray gives an excellent example using the sound of a ticking clock. He explains that through our life experience, we have learned that the sound of a clock ticking represents a second going by and therefore is “symbolically linked with the idea of time” (Murray 76). However, this symbolic link can be expanded upon depending on the context around it. If the sound accompanies a man sitting in a dark room staring at the ceiling, the ticking may represent time passing slowly. If it accompanies an unattended package at a train station, the sound could represent a possible bomb (Murray 77). This is a perfect example of how semiotics can be applied by a director or sound designer to directly influence the meaning of a film sequence. 

While this model may initially seem confusing or impractical, the primary purpose is to help guide meaning making through the use of sound. It helps to foster intentionality by encouraging the director or sound designer to focus on the messages that they are conveying with their choices for the soundtrack. This model is also beneficial because, as Murray points out, “its strength lies in its flexibility and universality” (Murray 76). The model can be applied as broadly or specifically as the director or analyst desires. One of the large advantages over other theories is that the model is equally useful in pre-production, production, and post-production. Additionally, the use of this theory does not look to replace the plethora of other theories previously devised. Instead, semiotics is a broader and more generalized framework that all other theories that discuss meaning making can fit into. 

For example, in his book Sound Technology and the American Cinema, James Lastra explores sound theories from the early days of sound film. In the chapter, he discusses the frequent debate between “phonographic” and “telephonic” models of sound design. A phonographic approach to sound attempts to create a “perfectly faithful reproduction of a spatiotemporally specific… performance” (Lastra 139). In other words, it creates a soundscape that is acoustically accurate based on the position of the camera. In this model, if a character is speaking and turns their head away from the camera, their voice will get quieter. A telephonic model “assumes that sound possesses an intrinsic hierarchy that renders some aspects essential and others not” (Lastra 139​). Using the same example, the dialogue would not get quieter since the model places emphasis on fidelity and intelligibility. In the chapter, Lastra goes on at length about the benefits and drawbacks of each model. Lastra’s ideas are certainly interesting and useful, but the debate as a whole can be folded into the larger umbrella of semiotics. Broadly, the use of a telephonic or phonographic model is itself a sign that conveys meaning. Further, signs then emerge through the use of these models. This demonstrates the universality and flexibility of semiotics previously mentioned. 

In applying semiotics, it is likely most useful to work in reverse: figure out the meaning or interpretation that you desire your audience to understand, and make a sonic decision that best achieves that goal. As explored in the section “In Practice”, this is applicable to all stages of production and all branches of the soundtrack. 

Of course, the meaning derived from sound largely depends on the audience. A 1960s love song featured in a film will likely have a vastly different meaning to a group of Baby Boomers compared to Generation Z. Beyond groups, the interpretation of every sign will even vary from individual to individual based on their life experience. When using semiotics, a director must attempt to know their target audience to best anticipate the audience’s interpretation of their sonic decisions.

Overall, semiotics is a robust, comprehensive, and practicable theoretical framework for creating meaning with sound. The following section will provide practical advice for applying semiotics in order to successfully make meaning with sound.