Advertisement

A Toy Semiotics, Revisited

  • David Myers
Chapter

Abstract

In 1984, Brian Sutton-Smith published ‘A Toy Semiotics’ in Children’s Environmental Quarterly, making this claim (Sutton-Smith 1984: 19):

Play as a kind of assimilation has the potentiality to retreat increasingly from its original objects of reference. The toy itself which signals the first such departure, then makes possible a series of increasingly remote responses depending on the resident fantasies within the players’ experience.

This chapter revisits this claim in light of the explosive growth, since 1984, of games and game industries and the relatively (and somewhat curiously) lesser impact of digital media on toys and toy industries. Examined are the different impact of digital media on toys and games and that difference is attributed to the different semiotic properties of the toy and the game: the game conventionally enables and evokes rule-based meanings; the toy does not. The unique semiotic properties and potentials of the game in comparison to the toy give games a particular affinity with digital media.

References

  1. Best, J. (1998). Too much fun: Toys as social problems and the interpretation of culture. Symbolic Interaction, 21(2), 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloch, L., & Lemish, D. (1999). Disposable love: The rise and fall of a virtual pet. New Media Society, 1, 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Copier, M. (2005, June). Connecting worlds. Fantasy role-playing games, ritual acts and the magic circle. Paper presented at DIGRA Conference, Changing Views: Worlds at Play, Vancouver. Retrieved June 1, 2014, from http://www.digra.org/digital-library/publications/connecting-worlds-fantasy-role-playing-games-ritual-acts-and-the-magic-circle.
  4. Cr1TiKaL. (2011, April 9). Facade game play and commentary. [Video file]. Retrieved June 1, 2014, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvQB223IwYU.
  5. ECSIP Consortium. (2013). Study on the competitiveness of the toy industry. Netherlands: ECORYS. Retrieved June 1, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/toys/files/reports-and-studies/final-report-competitiveness-toys-ecsip_en.pdf.
  6. Fleming, D. (1996). Powerplay: Toys as popular culture. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Higuchi, T., & Troutt, M. D. (2004). Dynamic simulation of the supply chain for a short life cycle product—Lessons from the Tamagotchi case. Computers & Operations Research, 31(7), 1097–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kyburz, J. A. (1994). “Omocha”: Things to play (or not to play) with. Asian Folklore Studies, 53(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leja, M. (2000). Peirce, visuality, and art. Representations, 72, 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Levaniouk, O. (2007). The toys of Dionysos. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 103, 165–202.Google Scholar
  12. Malaby, T. M. (2007). Beyond play: A new approach to games. Games and Culture, 2(2), 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mateas, M., & Stern, A. (2003). Façade: An experiment in building a fully-realized interactive drama. Paper presented at Game Developer’s Conference: Game Design Track, San Jose, CA. Retrieved June 1, 2014, from http://lmc.gatech.edu/~mateas/publications/MateasSternGDC03.pdf.
  14. Montessori, M. (1967). The absorbent mind. New York: Delta.Google Scholar
  15. Pennell, G. E. (1994). Babes in toyland: Learning an ideology of gender. In C. T. Allen & D. R. John (Eds.). Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 21, pp. 359–364). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  16. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  17. Suits, B. (2005). The Grasshopper: Games, life and Utopia. Ontario: Broadview Press (Original work published 1978).Google Scholar
  18. Sutton-Smith, B. (1984). A toy semiotics. Children’s Environmental Quarterly, 1(1), 19–21.Google Scholar
  19. Sutton-Smith, B. (1986). Toy as culture. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
  20. The Strong. (2013). National toy hall of fame: Inducted toys. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.toyhalloffame.org/toys.
  21. Verenikina, I., Harris, P., & Lysaght, P. (2003, July). Child’s play: Computer games, theories of play and children’s development. Paper presented at IFIP Working Group 3.5 Conference: Young Children and Learning Technologies. University of Western Sydney Parramatta, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved June 1, 2014, from http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV34Verenikina.pdf.
  22. Vygotsky, L. (1933). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In J. Bruner, A. Jolly, & K. Sylva (Eds.). Play: Its role in development and evolution (pp. 461–463). New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  23. Williams, D. (2006). A (brief) social history of video games. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.). Playing computer games: Motives, responses, and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved June 1, 2014, from http://dmitriwilliams.com/WilliamsSocHist.doc.
  24. Zimmerman, A. (2009, October 22). Mattel hopes Barbie facelift will show up younger rivals. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 1, 2014, from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB125607851547797455.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Loyola UniversityNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations