Crimes of Terrorism on Innocent Iraqis from (2014) to (2016): A Semiotic Study

  • Ali Haif AbbasEmail author
  • Enas Naji Kadim


Terrorist organisations have increased and widened in Iraq in particular and the world in general in recent years. People have suffered a lot from these terrorist organisations due to their thirst for killing innocent civilians. The study aims to convey the suffering of innocent Iraqis caused by terrorist acts to the world. In order to achieve the aim, the research adopted Barthes’s (1964) framework to analyse the selected photographs. The researchers have selected (13) iconic photographs for the analysis. The photographs are taken from the main websites of the local, Arabic, and foreign media. The study found out that terrorism is the brutal enemy of all Iraqi societies including Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, Christians, and Yazidis. This research is a clear example that shows the world the extent of the suffering, pain, and fear Iraqi people are facing because of terrorism.


Semiotics Signs Pierce Saussure Barthes 


  1. 1.
    Allen, G. 2003. Routledge critical thinkers: Roland Barthes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barthes, R. 1964. Elements of semiology. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beebe, B. 2004. The semiotic analysis of trademark law. UCLA Law Review 51(3): 621–704.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bilal, A.H. 2012. Analysis of thank you m’am: Halliday’s metafunctions. Academic Research International 2(1): 726–732.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chandler, D. 2002. Semiotics: The basics. 1st ed. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chandler, D. 2007. Semiotics: The basics. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danesi, M. 2004. Messages, signs, and meanings: A basic textbook in semiotics and communication. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eco, U. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fiske, J. 1990. Introduction to communication studies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hronsky, J. 1998. Signs, codes, and communication: The semiotics of audit reports. Parkville, Vic: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jewitt, C., and R. Oyama. 2001. Visual meaning: A social semiotic approach. In Handbook of visual analysis, ed. T. Van Leeuwen and C. Jewitt. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kress, G. 1988. Communication and culture. Kensington: New South Wales University.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leech, G. 1981. Semantics: The study of meaning. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Littlejohn, S., and K. Foss. 2005. Theories of human communication. Australia: Southbank, Vic.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, J. 2013. Visual images interpretive strategies in multimodal texts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 4(6): 1259–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martin, B., and F. Ringham. 2000. Dictionary of semiotics. London: CASSELL.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nöth, W. 1990. Handbook of semiotics advances in semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Önal, B. 2005. Subvertising versus advertising: A semiotical analysis of the culture jamming act. MA thesis. Bilkent University.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Richards, J., and R. Schmidt. 2010. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Royce, T. 1999. Visual-verbal intersemiotic complementarity in the economist magazine. Diss., University of Reading.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sebeok, A.T. 2001. Signs: An introduction to semiotics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Leeuwen, T. 2005. Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vorvilas, G., T. Karalis, and K. Ravanis. 2010. Applying multimodal discourse analysis to learning objects’ user interface. Contemporary Educational Technology 1(3): 255–266.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weiss, P., and A. Burks. 1945. Peirce’s sixty-six signs. Journal of Philosophy 42: 383–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yakin, H.S.M., and A. Totu. 2014. The semiotic perspective of Peirce and Saussure: A brief comparative study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 155: 4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yan, S., and F. Ming. 2015. Reinterpreting some key concepts in Barthes’ theory. Journal of Media and Communication Studies 7(3): 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yang, J., and Y. Zhang. 2014. Representation meaning of multimodal discourse: A case study of English editorials in the Economist. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 4(12): 2564–2575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WasitWasitIraq

Personalised recommendations