text:
Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ladies' singles
at the XXII Olympic Winter Games
Venue
Iceberg Skating Palace
Sochi, Russia
Dates
19 February 2014 (short program)
20 February 2014 (free skating)
Competitors
30 from 20 nations
Winning score
224.59
Medalists
01 !
Adelina Sotnikova Russia
02 !
Yuna Kim South Korea
03 !
Carolina Kostner Italy
← 2010
2018 →
Figure skating at the
2014 Winter Olympics
Qualification
Singles
men ladies
Pairs
mixed
Ice dancing
mixed
Team trophy
mixed
v
t
e
The ladies' single skating competition of the 2014 Winter Olympics was held at the Iceberg Skating Palace in Sochi, Russia. The short program took place on 19 February 2014, and the free skating took place on 20 February.[1] Adelina Sotnikova of Russia won the gold medal.
Contents
[hide]
1 Records
2 Schedule
3 Results
3.1 Short program
3.2 Free skating
3.3 Overall
4 Judges and officials
5 Responses
5.1 Official responses
5.2 Supporting opinions
5.3 Opposing opinions
6 References
7 External links
Records[edit]
For complete list of figure skating records, see list of highest scores in figure skating.
The following ISU season best scores (2013–2014) were set during this competition:
Component
Skaters
Score
Date
Ref
Short program Yuna Kim (KOR) 74.92 19 February 2014 [2]
Free skating Adelina Sotnikova (RUS) 149.95 20 February 2014 [3]
Total score 224.59 [4]
Schedule[edit]
All dates and times are (UTC+4).
Date
Time
Round
19 February 2014 19:00 Short program
20 February 2014 19:00 Free skating
Results[edit]
Short program[edit]
The short program (SP) took place on 19 February 2014.[5]
Pl.
Name
Nation
TSS
TES
PCS
SS
TR
PE
CH
IN
Ded
StN
1
Yuna Kim South Korea 74.92 39.03 35.89 9.04 8.61 9.11 8.89 9.21 0.00 17
2
Adelina Sotnikova Russia 74.64 39.09 35.55 8.82 8.57 9.11 8.89 9.04 0.00 29
3
Carolina Kostner Italy 74.12 37.49 36.63 9.00 8.79 9.36 9.25 9.39 0.00 26
4
Gracie Gold United States 68.63 36.55 32.08 8.04 7.71 8.14 8.04 8.18 0.00 22
5
Yulia Lipnitskaya Russia 65.23 33.15 33.08 8.43 8.07 8.14 8.43 8.29 –1.00 25
6
Ashley Wagner United States 65.21 31.43 33.78 8.39 8.11 8.61 8.50 8.61 0.00 27
7
Polina Edmunds United States 61.04 32.98 28.06 7.11 6.71 7.21 6.93 7.11 0.00 12
8
Akiko Suzuki Japan 60.97 28.71 32.26 8.18 7.79 8.00 8.11 8.25 0.00 24
9
Maé-Bérénice Méité France 58.63 30.83 27.80 7.07 6.64 7.04 6.93 7.07 0.00 28
10
Nathalie Weinzierl Germany 57.63 31.94 25.69 6.50 6.14 6.57 6.36 6.54 0.00 18
11
Li Zijun China 57.55 30.01 27.54 7.07 6.57 6.96 6.89 6.93 0.00 23
12
Valentina Marchei Italy 57.02 27.52 29.50 7.32 7.04 7.54 7.36 7.61 0.00 21
13
Kaetlyn Osmond Canada 56.18 27.51 28.67 7.18 6.96 7.18 7.14 7.39 0.00 8
14
Zhang Kexin China 55.80 32.68 23.12 6.11 5.61 5.79 5.75 5.64 0.00 7
15
Kanako Murakami Japan 55.60 26.72 28.88 7.39 6.93 7.25 7.21 7.32 0.00 20
16
Mao Asada Japan 55.51 22.63 33.88 8.57 8.29 8.14 8.64 8.71 –1.00 30
17
Elene Gedevanishvili Georgia 54.70 27.51 27.19 6.89 6.50 6.89 6.71 7.00 0.00 16
18
Kim Hae-jin South Korea 54.37 29.23 25.14 6.54 5.89 6.39 6.11 6.50 0.00 11
19
Gabrielle Daleman Canada 52.61 28.07 24.54 6.32 5.93 6.11 6.14 6.18 0.00 3
20
Elizaveta Ukolova Czech Republic 51.87 29.72 22.15 5.64 5.32 5.61 5.61 5.50 0.00 14
21
Nicole Rajičová Slovakia 49.80 26.63 23.17 5.89 5.50 5.93 5.79 5.86 0.00 13
22
Brooklee Han Australia 49.32 26.37 22.95 5.82 5.54 5.86 5.68 5.79 0.00 9
23
Park So-youn South Korea 49.14 25.35 23.79 6.14 5.68 6.00 5.89 6.04 0.00 2
24
Anne Line Gjersem Norway 48.56 26.13 22.43 5.68 5.36 5.71 5.50 5.79 0.00 15
Did not advance to free skating
25
Jenna McCorkell Great Britain 48.34 25.34 23.00 5.89 5.36 6.04 5.71 5.75 0.00 5
26
Kerstin Frank Austria 48.00 26.64 21.36 5.61 5.14 5.39 5.39 5.18 0.00 6
27
Viktoria Helgesson Sweden 47.84 21.83 27.01 7.11 6.57 6.50 6.82 6.75 –1.00 19
28
Natalia Popova Ukraine 47.42 24.30 23.12 6.00 5.54 5.82 5.82 5.71 0.00 4
29
Jelena Glebova Estonia 46.19 22.59 23.60 6.11 5.75 5.89 5.89 5.86 0.00 1
30
Isadora Williams Brazil 40.37 18.93 21.44 5.39 5.14 5.39 5.39 5.50 0.00 10
TSS - Total Segment Score; TES - Technical Element Score; PCS - Program Component Score; SS - Skating Skills; TR - Transitions; PE - Performance/Execution
CH - Choreography; IN - Interpretation; Ded - Deduction; StN - Starting Number
Free skating[edit]
The Free skating took place on 20 February 2014.[6]
Pl.
Name
Nation
TSS
TES
PCS
SS
TR
PE
CH
IN
Ded
StN
1
Adelina Sotnikova Russia 149.95 75.54 74.41 9.18 8.96 9.43 9.50 9.43 0.00 21
2
Yuna Kim South Korea 144.19 69.69 74.50 9.21 8.96 9.43 9.39 9.57 0.00 24
3
Mao Asada Japan 142.71 73.03 69.68 8.75 8.36 8.79 8.79 8.86 0.00 12
4
Carolina Kostner Italy 142.61 68.84 73.77 9.14 8.71 9.43 9.21 9.61 0.00 20
5
Gracie Gold United States 136.90 69.57 68.33 8.57 8.25 8.61 8.64 8.64 –1.00 22
6
Yulia Lipnitskaya Russia 135.34 66.28 70.06 8.68 8.46 8.68 9.00 8.96 –1.00 19
7
Ashley Wagner United States 127.99 61.07 66.92 8.46 8.07 8.50 8.36 8.43 0.00 23
8
Akiko Suzuki Japan 125.35 60.57 65.78 8.36 7.82 8.21 8.29 8.43 –1.00 15
9
Polina Edmunds United States 122.21 63.02 60.19 7.54 7.29 7.57 7.61 7.61 –1.00 17
10
Valentina Marchei Italy 116.31 55.56 60.75 7.46 7.18 7.75 7.71 7.86 0.00 16
11
Maé-Bérénice Méité France 115.90 60.86 56.04 7.11 6.57 7.14 7.07 7.14 –1.00 14
12
Kanako Murakami Japan 115.38 56.96 58.42 7.54 6.93 7.36 7.32 7.36 0.00 10
13
Kaetlyn Osmond Canada 112.80 55.97 57.83 7.25 6.96 7.32 7.25 7.36 –1.00 7
14
Li Zijun China 110.75 55.79 54.96 7.04 6.57 6.82 6.96 6.96 0.00 13
15
Zhang Kexin China 98.41 49.84 48.57 6.43 5.71 6.11 6.14 5.96 0.00 11
16
Gabrielle Daleman Canada 95.83 48.40 47.43 6.11 5.75 5.82 6.00 5.96 0.00 3
17
Kim Hae-jin South Korea 95.11 45.25 50.86 6.61 6.07 6.29 6.50 6.32 –1.00 9
18
Brooklee Han Australia 94.52 48.71 46.81 6.00 5.43 5.96 5.86 6.00 –1.00 2
19
Park So-youn South Korea 93.83 48.72 46.11 6.04 5.50 5.82 5.75 5.71 –1.00 1
20
Elene Gedevanishvili Georgia 92.45 39.85 53.60 6.93 6.32 6.75 6.75 6.75 –1.00 8
21
Nathalie Weinzierl Germany 89.73 38.47 52.26 6.71 6.39 6.46 6.64 6.46 –1.00 18
22
Anne Line Gjersem Norway 85.98 41.24 44.74 5.64 5.32 5.61 5.71 5.68 0.00 5
23
Elizaveta Ukolova Czech Republic 84.55 42.94 43.61 5.61 5.29 5.29 5.68 5.39 –2.00 4
24
Nicole Rajičová Slovakia 75.20 30.39 45.81 5.82 5.54 5.50 5.89 5.89 –1.00 6
TSS - Total Segment Score; TES - Technical Element Score; PCS - Program Component Score; SS - Skating Skills; TR - Transitions; PE - Performance/Execution
CH - Choreography; IN - Interpretation; Ded - Deduction; StN - Starting Number
Skaters perform in groups of six. After the first two groups (12 skaters), the rink is re-iced.
Overall[edit]
The skaters are ranked according to their overall score.[7]
Rank
Name
Nation
TP
SP
FS
01 !
Adelina Sotnikova Russia 224.59 2 74.64 1 149.95
02 !
Yuna Kim South Korea 219.11 1 74.92 2 144.19
03 !
Carolina Kostner Italy 216.73 3 74.12 4 142.61
04 !4
Gracie Gold United States 205.53 4 68.63 5 136.90
05 !5
Yulia Lipnitskaya Russia 200.57 5 65.23 6 135.34
06 !6
Mao Asada Japan 198.22 16 55.51 3 142.71
07 !7
Ashley Wagner United States 193.20 6 65.21 7 127.99
08 !8
Akiko Suzuki Japan 186.32 8 60.97 8 125.35
09 !9
Polina Edmunds United States 183.25 7 61.04 9 122.21
10
Maé-Bérénice Méité France 174.53 9 58.63 11 115.90
11
Valentina Marchei Italy 173.33 12 57.02 10 116.31
12
Kanako Murakami Japan 170.98 15 55.60 12 115.38
13
Kaetlyn Osmond Canada 168.98 13 56.18 13 112.80
14
Li Zijun China 168.30 11 57.55 14 110.75
15
Zhang Kexin China 154.21 14 55.80 15 98.41
16
Kim Hae-jin South Korea 149.48 18 54.37 17 95.11
17
Gabrielle Daleman Canada 148.44 19 52.61 16 95.83
18
Nathalie Weinzierl Germany 147.36 10 57.63 21 89.73
19
Elene Gedevanishvili Georgia 147.15 17 54.70 20 92.45
20
Brooklee Han Australia 143.84 22 49.32 18 94.52
21
Park So-youn South Korea 142.97 23 49.14 19 93.83
22
Elizaveta Ukolova Czech Republic 136.42 20 51.87 23 84.55
23
Anne Line Gjersem Norway 134.54 24 48.56 22 85.98
24
Nicole Rajičová Slovakia 125.00 21 49.80 24 75.20
Did not advance to free skating
25
Jenna McCorkell Great Britain 48.34 25 48.34 N/A
26
Kerstin Frank Austria 48.00 26 48.00 N/A
27
Viktoria Helgesson Sweden 47.84 27 47.84 N/A
28
Natalia Popova Ukraine 47.42 28 47.42 N/A
29
Jelena Glebova Estonia 46.19 29 46.19 N/A
30
Isadora Williams Brazil 40.37 30 40.37 N/A
Judges and officials[edit]
Short Program judges[8]
Judge 1: Robert Rosenbluth
Judge 2: Karen Howard
Judge 3: Franco Benini
Judge 4: Birgit Föll
Judge 5: Diana Stevens
Judge 6: Nobuhiko Yoshioka
Judge 7: Katarina Henriksson
Judge 8: Adriana Domanska
Judge 9: Koh Sung-Hee
Free Skating judges[9]
Judge 1: Birgit Föll
Judge 2: Yuri Balkov
Judge 3: Franco Benini
Judge 4: Zanna Kulik
Judge 5: Nobuhiko Yoshioka
Judge 6: Alla Shekhovtsova
Judge 7: Hélène Cucuphat
Judge 8: Karen Howard
Judge 9: Adriana Domanska
Technical controller: Alexander Lakernik
Technical specialist: Vanessa Gusmeroli
Assistant technical specialist: Olga Baranova
Referee: Diana Barbacci Levy
Data operator: David Santee
Replay operator: Alexander Kuznetsov
Responses[edit]
Immediately after the final scores were announced, journalistic questions arose regarding whether 17 year old Adelina Sotnikova's performance deserved higher scores than the performances of the 23 year old figure skater Yuna Kim.[10][11] Questions over the judges, the judging system, and the anonymity of scores were also raised in the press.[12]
Official responses[edit]
On 21 February 2014, the International Skating Union (ISU) issued a statement which asserted all rules and procedures were applied during the competition and that no official protest had been filed by any participating nation concerning the results of the competition.[13] Such a protest must be done within 30 minutes of the event.[14][15]
ISU's 21 February 2014 statement declaring their confidence "in the high quality and integrity of the ISU judging system". Adding "judges were selected by random drawing from a pool of 13 potential judges" and all nine judges on the free skating panel were from different nations.[13]
On 10 April, the Korean Olympic Committee (KOC) and the Korean Skating Union (KSU) filed an official complaint with the ISU Disciplinary Commission (DC) concerning judging. The complaint was regarding "the wrongful constitution of the panel of judges and the unjust outcome of the competition". It requested that the DC conduct a thorough investigation, "take appropriate disciplinary actions against the concerned individuals", and institute corrective actions. On 14 April, the DC ruled the complaint inadmissible because a general request for investigation is not within DC's jurisdiction and the complaint was not addressed at an individual or federation as required.[16][17][18]
On 30 April, the KOC and KSU filed a second official complaint with the DC. This time the complaint was against Alla Shekhovtsova and Figure Skating Federation of Russia (FSFR), specifically citing a hug Shekhovtsova shared with Sotnikova and Shekhovtsova's marriage to the current Director General of the FSFR. On 30 May, the DC dismissed the complaint. It ruled Shekhovtsova "is not responsible for the judging panel's composition", her marriage did not create a conflict of interest, and since Sotnikova initiated the hug, Shekhovtsova did not break any rules by responding.[16][17][18]
As of June 2014, the KOC and KSU are considering appealing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).[18]
Supporting opinions[edit]
On 20 February 2014, The New York Times published a technical assessment of the competition titled "How Sotnikova Beat Kim" with a point-by-point and jump-by-jump comparison of the performances of the two skaters.[19] The New York Times also reported in a conjointly published article that Sotnikova's routine was athletically challenging stating that: "Sotnikova scored higher on the technical merit of her program. For instance, Kim did not attempt a triple loop or a double axel, triple toe loop combination, as Sotnikova did."[20]
Michelle Kwan, two-time Olympic silver medalist and five-time World champion, stated "Under the scoring system, hands down, Adelina won." (However, Kwan added "I personally enjoyed Yuna Kim's performance more".)[21] Three-time world champion and two-time Olympic silver medalist Elvis Stojko responded "It was totally fair, Adelina was ready. Kim didn't have enough technical ammunition."[22] Tara Lipinski, the 1998 Olympic champion, together with Johnny Weir, the 2008 World bronze medalist, have also expressed their agreement with the judges' decision on Sotnikova's performance.[23] Scott Hamilton, the 1984 Olympic champion, said that while Sotnikova's skating is not as aesthetically pleasing as Kim's, her athletic style "checks off every box" and "does everything the judges are looking for."[24] Alexei Mishin, the Russian 1969 world medalist and coach to three Olympic champions, said that "… Sotnikova's victory is absolutely natural and objective."[25]
Opposing opinions[edit]
USA Today reported "A high-ranking Olympic figure skating official … said the geographic makeup of the judging panel 'was clearly slanted towards … Sotnikova.'"[26] The free skating panel included two Russian officials, a Russian judge and a Ukrainian judge.[27] Journalists questioned the appointments of Russian judge Alla Shekhovtsova, the wife of the former president and the current general director of Figure Skating Federation of Russia Valentin Piseev, and Ukrainian judge Yuri Balkov, who was suspended for a year after being caught on tape attempting to fix the ice dancing competition at the 1998 Winter Olympics.[28] The technical panel, that oversees correct execution of elements, is headed by fellow Russian Alexander Lakernik.[11] Shekhovtseva was photographed hugging Sotnikova in the arena, raising another question of bias.[29] The detailed score sheet shows that one judge gave Adelina Sotnikova +3 grade of execution (GOE) on all except two elements. In contrast, the score sheet of short program shows that one judge gave Yuna Kim +0 grade of execution on her triple flip, of which the NBC commentator Tracy Wilson commented as 'another perfect flip'.[6][11] French newspaper L'Equipe also reports accusations to Russia and US conspiring to help Russia on the figure skating events and US on ice dance events.[30]
Journalists and experts argued that scores given to Adelina Sotnikova were inflated both in the short and long programs. She was inexplicably scored above all others in the free program, where most believed she merited only 4th place in the phase behind Yuna, Mao Asada, and Carolina Kostner. Many among them cite that certain judges gave generous scores along with fellow Russian competitor Yulia Lipnitskaya. In particular, numerous +3 grade of executions were handed out to the two Russian skaters as well as nods in component scores compared to other skaters.[10][11] Others noted that Sotnikova made a mistake by stepping out of one of her jumps which got a -0.9 grade of execution in the scorecards. Ryan Bradley, 2011 US champion, asked "Are we just going to ignore that she botched the landing of her 3 jump and pretend she was perfect?"[31][32] There are also debates about whether Sotnikova's triple lutz had a wrong edge on takeoff and the triple toe loop in her first jumping pass was under-rotated. Neither error was flagged by the event's technical panel. Retired national-level figure skater Tim Gerber wrote a letter to the ISU, claiming that Sotnikova's triple triple combination jump should have received wrong edge and under rotation. Gerber also asserted that the step sequence levels were not correctly awarded for Kim and Sotnikova. He stated that Kim's step sequence should have received a level four (instead of three) and Sotnikova's step sequence should have received a level three (instead of four), as Sotnikova's step sequence elements in free skating didn't meet the requirements to get level four, and Kim's met the requirements enough to get level four. [33]
Katarina Witt, a two-time Olympic champion, stated "I am stunned by this result, I don’t understand the scoring."[34][35] Several experts have also pointed out how Kim and Kostner's programs have significantly better artistry, choreography and skill on ice that should translate to higher component marks to other skaters. One judge in the scoresheets gave out significantly lower marks to Kim and Kostner in the component marks. Sonia Garbato, seven-time Olympic figure skating judge and former high-ranking ISU official, wrote: "No fair judge … could have awarded to Adelina higher marks in choreography, performance/execution, and interpretation of the music."[36] Four-time world champion Kurt Browning also expressed his surprise at the results, declaring that he did not understand how Kim and Sotnikova could have been so close in the programme component scores. He also pointed out how Sotnikova had her component scores boosted compared to her previous programs [37] Michael Weiss, a two-time world bronze medalist, wrote "couldn't disagree more that Yuna and Sotnikova had basically same Component marks?..in Both short & long? Home field inflation." Dick Button, two-time Olympic champion and longstanding skating analyst, commented: "Sotnikova was energetic, strong, commendable, but not a complete skater." [11][38]
A petition in Change.org against the results of the event demanding an investigation and rejudgment has amassed over 2 million supporters breaking several web traffic records on the website.[39]
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "Figure Skating Schedule and Results". Sochi 2014. SOOC. Retrieved 11 January 2014.
Jump up ^ "ISU Judging System - Season Bests Short Program Scores 2013/2014, Ladies". ISU Results. International Skating Union. Retrieved 23 March 2014.
Jump up ^ "ISU Judging System - Season Bests Free Skating Scores 2013/2014, Ladies". ISU Results. International Skating Union. Retrieved 23 March 2014.
Jump up ^ "ISU Judging System - Season Bests Total Scores 2013/2014, Ladies". ISU Results. International Skating Union. Retrieved 23 March 2014.
Jump up ^ "Olympic Winter Games 2014 Ladies Short Program Scores" (PDF). ISU Results. International Skating Union. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b "Olympic Winter Games 2014 Ladies Free Skating Scores" (PDF). ISU Results. International Skating Union. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
Jump up ^ "Olympic Winter Games, Sochi 2014, Ladies Result". ISU Results. International Skating Union. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
Jump up ^ Pilon, Mary. "Panel of Judges". ISU.org. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
Jump up ^ Pilon, Mary (20 February 2014). "Who Were the Figure Skating Judges?". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b McCurry, Justin (21 February 2014). "Sochi 2014: 1.5m sign petition calling for inquiry into figure skating gold". The Guardian. Tokyo. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Why People Think Adelina Sotnikova's Figure Skating Gold Medal Was Rigged". The Wire. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
Jump up ^ Sarkar, Pritha (20 February 2014). "Sotnikova's win raises judging questions". Reuters. Sochi, Russia. Retrieved 24 March 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b "ISU Statement on the ISU Judging System". International Skating Union. 21 February 2014. Retrieved 25 February 2014.
Jump up ^ Armour, Nancy (4 June 2014). "Skating officials say no bias by Russian judge in Sochi". USA Today. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
Jump up ^ "Russia's figure skater Sotnikova's case finally closed". The Voice of Russia. 5 June 2014. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b "Case No. 2014-03 – Decision of the ISU Disciplinary Commission". International Skating Union. 30 May 2014. Retrieved 6 June 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b Zaccardi, Nick (5 June 2014). "Olympic figure skating judging complaints rejected by ISU". NBC Sports. Retrieved 6 June 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b c Kim, Narae (5 June 2014). "South Korea slip up in Sochi figure skating complaint". Reuters. Seoul. Retrieved 6 June 2014.
Jump up ^ "How Sotnikova Beat Kim, Move by Move". The New York Times. 20 February 2014.
Jump up ^ Longman, Jere (21 February 2014). "Russian Is Surprise Winner in Women's Figure Skating". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
Jump up ^ Schrager, Peter (21 February 2014). "Schrager: Judging controversy no surprise in figure skating". FOX Sports. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
Jump up ^ "Russian Is Surprise Winner in Women's Figure Skating". The New York Times. 20 February 2014.
Jump up ^ "Russia's figure skating gold was surprising, not shady". USA Today. 20 February 2014.
Jump up ^ Longman, Jeré (20 February 2014). "Russian Is Surprise Winner in Women's Figure Skating". The New York Times.
Jump up ^ Ivanov, Vladimir (21 February 2014). Алексей Мишин: "Некоторые слишком ревностно отнеслись к победам Сотниковой" [Alexei Mishin: "Some reacted too jealously to Sotnikova's victory"]. sport-express.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 16 April 2014.
Jump up ^ "Official says judges slanted toward Adelina Sotnikova". USA Today. 21 February 2014.
Jump up ^ Pilon, Mary (20 February 2014). "Who Were the Figure Skating Judges?". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
Jump up ^ Brennan, Christine (21 February 2014). "Brennan: Skating Insiders Question Sochi Gold Judging". USA Today. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
Jump up ^ "A Whole New Set of Questions About Adelina Sotnikova's Allegedly Rigged Gold Medal Win". Retrieved 16 March 2014.
Jump up ^ "US and Russia accused of conspiring to rig figure skating competitions in Sochi". Daily Mail. 10 February 2014.
Jump up ^ "Reaction to Adelina Sotnikova's gold medal win over Carolina Kostner and Yuna Kim". USA Today. 20 February 2014. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
Jump up ^ "2014 controversy as Russian Adelina Sotnikova upsets Korean favourite Kim Yuna to snatch figure skating gold medal". The Sydney Morning Herald. 21 February 2014. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
Jump up ^ "Letter to ISU office holders: "People deserve to know if a mistake was made"". Retrieved 25 March 2014.
Jump up ^ McCurry, Justin (21 February 2014). "Sochi 2014: 1.5m sign petition calling for inquiry into figure skating gold". The Guardian. Tokyo. Retrieved 18 May 2014.
Jump up ^ "Judges on thin ice after controversial Russian win". The Irish Times. 20 February 2014. Retrieved 18 May 2014.
Jump up ^ "Sonia Bianchetti Garbato, Figure Skating Referee, Author: The 2014 Olympic Games"". Retrieved 29 March 2014.
Jump up ^ "Kurt Browning 'shocked' by Adelina Sotnikova's gold in figure skating". CBC.ca. Thomson Reuters. 21 February 2014. Retrieved 10 April 2014.
Jump up ^ "Olympic figure skating icon praises Kim's performance". Retrieved 30 March 2014.
Jump up ^ "Petition in Support of Yuna Kim Gets Record Signings". Retrieved 21 February 2014.
External links[edit]
Sochi 2014 Figure Skating – Ladies' Singles page
Sochi 2014 Figure Skating Results Book
2014 Winter Olympics page at the International Skating Union
2014 Winter Olympics results at the International Skating Union
[hide]
v
t
e
Olympic champions in figure skating – Ladies' singles
1908: Madge Syers (GBR)
1920: Magda Julin (SWE)
1924: Herma Szabo (AUT)
1928: Sonja Henie (NOR)
1932: Sonja Henie (NOR)
1936: Sonja Henie (NOR)
1948: Barbara Ann Scott (CAN)
1952: Jeannette Altwegg (GBR)
1956: Tenley Albright (USA)
1960: Carol Heiss (USA)
1964: Sjoukje Dijkstra (NED)
1968: Peggy Fleming (USA)
1972: Trixi Schuba (AUT)
1976: Dorothy Hamill (USA)
1980: Anett Pötzsch (GDR)
1984: Katarina Witt (GDR)
1988: Katarina Witt (GDR)
1992: Kristi Yamaguchi (USA)
1994: Oksana Baiul (UKR)
1998: Tara Lipinski (USA)
2002: Sarah Hughes (USA)
2006: Shizuka Arakawa (JPN)
2010: Yuna Kim (KOR)
2014: Adelina Sotnikova (RUS)
2018: Alina Zagitova (OAR)
[hide]
v
t
e
2013–14 figure skating season
Olympics
Qualification
Men's singles
Ladies' singles
Pair skating
Ice dancing
Team trophy
ISU Championships
European Championships
Four Continents Championships
World Junior Championships
World Championships
World Synchronized Skating Championships
ISU Grand Prix
Skate America
Skate Canada International
Cup of China
NHK Trophy
Trophée Éric Bompard
Cup of Russia
Grand Prix Final
Senior Internationals
U.S. International Classic
Nebelhorn Trophy
Ondrej Nepela Trophy
Finlandia Trophy
Cup of Nice
NRW Trophy
Volvo Open Cup
Warsaw Cup
Merano Cup
Ice Challenge
Golden Spin of Zagreb
Winter Universiade
Nordics
Triglav Trophy
Junior Internationals
ISU Junior Grand Prix
Junior Grand Prix Final
National Championships
Australia
Austria
Canada
China
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Great Britain
Hungary
Italy
Japan
New Zealand
Poland
Russia
Slovakia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Ukraine
United States
[show]
v
t
e
Record scores in figure skating
Combined total (Total)
Short program (SP)
Free skating (FS)
Short dance (SD)
Free dance (FD)
Juniors (J)
Men
Total: Yuzuru Hanyu 330.43
SP: Yuzuru Hanyu 112.72
FS: Yuzuru Hanyu 223.20
Total (J): Vincent Zhou 258.11
SP (J): Shoma Uno 84.87
FS (J): Vincent Zhou 179.24
Ladies
Total: Evgenia Medvedeva 241.31
SP: Alina Zagitova 82.92
FS: Evgenia Medvedeva 160.46
Total (J): Alexandra Trusova 225.52
SP (J): Alexandra Trusova 73.25
FS (J): Alexandra Trusova 153.49
Pairs
Total: Aliona Savchenko / Bruno Massot 245.84
SP: Tatiana Volosozhar / Maxim Trankov 84.17
FS: Savchenko / Massot 162.86
Total (J): Anna Dušková / Martin Bidař 181.82
SP (J): Amina Atakhanova / Ilia Spiridonov 64.79
FS (J): Sui Wenjing / Han Cong 118.54
Ice dance
Total: Gabriella Papadakis / Guillaume Cizeron 207.20
SD: Papadakis / Cizeron 83.73
FD: Papadakis / Cizeron 123.47
Total (J): Rachel Parsons / Michael Parsons 164.83
SD (J): R. Parsons / M. Parsons 67.88
FD (J): R. Parsons / M. Parsons 97.54
See also
Progression of record scores
Record technical and component scores
Highest technical element scores
Highest program component scores
See also (J)
Record junior scores
Progression of record scores (J)
Record technical and component scores (J)
Highest technical element scores (J)
Highest program component scores (J)
[show]
v
t
e
Olympic Games scandals and controversies
By year
2008 (summer)
2010 (winter)
2012 (summer)
2014 (winter)
2016 (summer)
2018 (winter)
2020 (summer)
2022 (winter)
Boycotts
1936
1956
1964
1976
1980
1984
1988
Alternative
competitions
People's Olympiad (1936)
Games of the New Emerging Forces (1963)
Liberty Bell Classic (1980)
Friendship Games (1984)
Goodwill Games (1986–2001)
Events
Football match between Peru and Austria (1936)
"Blood in the Water" water polo match (1956)
Tlatelolco massacre (1968)
Black Power salute (1968)
Munich massacre (1972)
Basketball gold-medal match controversy (1972)
Kozakiewicz's gesture (1980)
Centennial Olympic Park bombing (1996)
Winter Olympic bid scandal (1998)
Figure-skating judging scandal (2002)
Underage gymnasts controversy (2008)
Death of Nodar Kumaritashvili (2010)
One minute of silence campaign (2012)
LGBT rights protests (2014)
Sochi Ladies' singles judging controversy (2014)
Russian doping scandal (2015–present)
Ireland Summer Olympics ticket scandal (2016)
Death of Bahman Golbarnezhad (2016)
Lochtegate (2016)
Rule 40 (2016)
List of stripped Olympic medals
Doping at the Olympic Games
Apartheid-era South Africa and the Olympics
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figure_skating_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics_–_Ladies%27_singles&oldid=829552265"
Categories:
Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics
Women's events at the 2014 Winter Olympics
Hidden categories:
CS1 uses Russian-language script (ru)
CS1 Russian-language sources (ru)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Čeština
Français
한국어
Italiano
Magyar
Nederlands
Norsk
Polski
Português
Русский
Српски / srpski
Svenska
Türkçe
4 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 9 March 2018, at 09:58.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

values: row white-space:nowrap;

attrs: href title

value: td

value: span

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles

values: Figure skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles

values: text-align:center;border-top: 1px solid #aaa; padding-top: 3px;

values: Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Qualification

values: text-align:left;;line-height:1.4em;padding:0.1em 0.4em 0.2em 0.1em;font-weight:normal

values: Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Men's singles

values: Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Pairs skating

values: Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ice dancing

values: Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Team trophy

values: Template:Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics

values: Template talk:Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics

values: float:right;clear:right;width:auto;max-width:25em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f5faff;border:1px solid #B8C7D9;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;font-size:88%

values: List of highest scores in figure skating

values:
headerSort
0
columnheader button
Sort ascending

values: United States at the 2014 Winter Olympics

values: Czech Republic at the 2014 Winter Olympics

values: Great Britain at the 2014 Winter Olympics

values:
wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter
text-align:center

values: background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; vertical-align: middle; font-size: smaller; text-align: center;

values:
/wiki/Korean_Olympic_Committee
mw-redirect
Korean Olympic Committee

values:
/wiki/The_Voice_of_Russia
mw-redirect
The Voice of Russia

values: -moz-column-width: 25em; -webkit-column-width: 25em; column-width: 25em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: List of Olympic medalists in figure skating

values: Figure skating at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Ladies' singles

values: Great Britain at the 1908 Summer Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 1920 Summer Olympics – Ladies' singles

values: Figure skating at the 1924 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles

values: Figure skating at the 1928 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles

values: Figure skating at the 1932 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles

values: Figure skating at the 1936 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles

values: Figure skating at the 1948 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 1952 Winter Olympics

values: Great Britain at the 1952 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 1956 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles

values: United States at the 1956 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 1960 Winter Olympics

values: United States at the 1960 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 1964 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 1968 Winter Olympics

values: United States at the 1968 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 1972 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 1976 Winter Olympics

values: United States at the 1976 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 1980 Winter Olympics

values: East Germany at the 1980 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 1984 Winter Olympics

values: East Germany at the 1984 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 1988 Winter Olympics

values: East Germany at the 1988 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 1992 Winter Olympics

values: United States at the 1992 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 1994 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles

values: Figure skating at the 1998 Winter Olympics

values: United States at the 1998 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics

values: United States at the 2002 Winter Olympics

values: Figure skating at the 2006 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles

values: Olympic Athletes from Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics

values: padding:0em 0.25em -moz-column-width: 20em; -webkit-column-width: 20em; column-width: 20em;

values: nowraplinks collapsible expanded navbox-inner

values: Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Pair skating

values: 2014 European Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 Four Continents Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 World Junior Figure Skating Championships

values: ISU World Synchronized Skating Championships

values: 2013–14 ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating

values: 2013–14 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final

values: U.S. International Figure Skating Classic

values: Figure skating at the 2013 Winter Universiade

values: 2014 Nordic Figure Skating Championships

values: 2013–14 Australian Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 Austrian Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 Canadian Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 Chinese Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 Four Nationals Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 Danish Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 Estonian Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 Finnish Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 French Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 German Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 British Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 Italian Figure Skating Championships

values: 2013–14 Japan Figure Skating Championships

values: 2013–14 New Zealand Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 Russian Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 South Korean Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 Spanish Figure Skating Championships

values: 2013–14 Swedish Figure Skating Championships

values: 2014 Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships (page does not exist)

values: Template:Record scores in figure skating

values: Template talk:Record scores in figure skating

values: 2015–16 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final

values: List of highest junior scores in figure skating

values: 2017 World Junior Figure Skating Championships

values: 2015 World Junior Figure Skating Championships

values: 2017 ISU World Team Trophy in Figure Skating

values: 2018 World Junior Figure Skating Championships

values: 2017–18 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final

values: 2016 World Junior Figure Skating Championships

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Template talk:Olympic Games controversies

values: List of Olympic Games scandals and controversies

values: Concerns and controversies at the 2008 Summer Olympics

values: Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics

values: Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

values: Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics

values: Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics

values: Concerns and controversies at the 2018 Winter Olympics

values: Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics

values: Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics

values:
/wiki/List_of_Olympic_Game_boycotts
mw-redirect
List of Olympic Game boycotts

values: Peru 4–2 Austria (1936 Summer Olympics association football)

values: 2002 Winter Olympics figure skating scandal

values: 2012 Olympics one minute of silence campaign

values: LGBT rights protests surrounding the 2014 Winter Olympics

values: Apartheid-era South Africa and the Olympics

values: Category:Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics

values: Category:Women's events at the 2014 Winter Olympics

values: Category:CS1 uses Russian-language script (ru)

values: Category:CS1 Russian-language sources (ru)

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: Krasobruslení na Zimních olympijských hrách 2014 – ženy – Czech

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-cs
display: none;

values: Patinage artistique aux Jeux olympiques de 2014 - Femmes – French

values: 2014년 동계 올림픽 피겨스케이팅 여자 싱글 – Korean

values: Pattinaggio di figura ai XXII Giochi olimpici invernali - Pattinaggio di figura femminile – Italian

values: Női egyéni műkorcsolya a 2014. évi téli olimpiai játékokon – Hungarian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-hu
display: none;

values: Kunstrijden op de Olympische Winterspelen 2014 - Vrouwen – Dutch

values: Kunstløp under Vinter-OL 2014 – Kvinner singel – Norwegian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-no
display: none;

values: Łyżwiarstwo figurowe na Zimowych Igrzyskach Olimpijskich 2014 – solistki – Polish

values: Patinação artística nos Jogos Olímpicos de Inverno de 2014 – Individual feminino – Portuguese

values: Фигурное катание на зимних Олимпийских играх 2014 — одиночное катание (женщины) – Russian

values: Уметничко клизање на Зимским олимпијским играма 2014 — појединачно за жене – Serbian

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sr
display: none;

values: Damernas singelåkning i konståkning vid olympiska vinterspelen 2014 – Swedish

values: 2014 Kış Olimpiyatları'nda artistik buz pateni - Kadınlar – Turkish

values: All languages (initial selection from common choices by you and others)

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Figure_skating_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics_–_Ladies_singles rootpage-Figure_skating_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics_–_Ladies_singles skin-vector action-view


text:
Encoding/decoding model of communication
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Encoding/decoding model of communication was first developed by cultural studies scholar Stuart Hall in 1973. Titled 'Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse', Hall's essay offers a theoretical approach of how media messages are produced, disseminated, and interpreted.[1] As an important member of the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies, Hall had a major influence on media studies. His model claims that television and other media audiences are presented with messages that are decoded, or interpreted in different ways depending on an individual's cultural background, economic standing, and personal experiences. In contrast to other media theories that disempower audiences, Hall proposed that audience members can play an active role in decoding messages as they rely on their own social contexts, and might be capable of changing messages themselves through collective action. In simpler terms, encoding/decoding is the translation of a message that is easily understood. When you decode a message, you extract the meaning of that message in ways that make sense to you. Decoding has both verbal and non-verbal forms of communication: Decoding behavior without using words means observing body language and its associated emotions. For example, some body language signs for when someone is upset, angry, or stressed would be a use of excessive hand/arm movements, red in the face, crying, and even sometimes silence. Sometimes when someone is trying to get a message across to someone, the message can be interpreted differently from person to person. Decoding is all about the understanding of what someone already knows, based on the information given throughout the message being received. Whether there is a large audience or exchanging a message to one person, decoding is the process of obtaining, absorbing, understanding, and sometimes using the information that was given throughout a verbal or non-verbal message.
For example, since advertisements can have multiple layers of meaning, they can be decoded in various ways and can mean something different to different people.[2] Hall claims that the decoding subject can assume three different positions: Dominant/hegemonic position, negotiated position, and oppositional position.
"The level of connotation of the visual sign, of its contextual reference and positioning in different discursive fields of meaning and association, is the point where already coded signs intersect with the deep semantic codes of a culture and take on additional more active ideological dimensions."
—  Stuart Hall, 1980, "Encoding/decoding."[3]
Contents
[hide]
1 Definition
2 Application of model
3 Dominant/hegemonic position
4 Negotiated position
5 Oppositional position
6 The encoding/decoding model critique
7 See also
8 References
Definition[edit]
The encoding of a message is the production of the message. It is a system of coded meanings, and in order to create that, the sender needs to understand how the world is comprehensible to the members of the audience.
In the process of encoding, the sender (i.e. encoder) uses verbal (e.g. words, signs, images, video) and non-verbal (e.g. body language, hand gestures, face expressions) symbols for which he or she believes the receiver (that is, the decoder) will understand. The symbols can be words and numbers, images, face expressions, signals and/or actions. It is very important how a message will be encoded; it partially depends on the purpose of the message.[4]
The decoding of a message is how an audience member is able to understand, and interpret the message. It is a process of interpretation and translation of coded information into a comprehensible form. The audience is trying to reconstruct the idea by giving meanings to symbols and by interpreting the message as a whole. Effective communication is accomplished only when the message is received and understood in the intended way. However, it is still possible for the message recipient to understand a message in a completely different way from what was the encoder was trying to convey. This is when "distortions" or "misunderstanding" arise from "lack of equivalence" between the two sides in communicative exchange.[4]
In his essay,[1] Hall compares two models of communication. The first, the traditional model is criticized for its linearity – sender/message/receiver – and for its lack of structured conception of various moments as a complex structure of relations. The author proposes the idea that there is more to the process of communication and, thus, advances a four-stage model of communication that takes into account the production, circulation, use and reproduction of media messages. In contrast to the traditional linear approach of the sender and receiver, he perceives each of these steps as both autonomous and interdependent. Hall further explains that the meanings and messages in the discursive "production" are organized through the operation of codes within the rules of "language." "Each stage will affect the message (or "product") being conveyed as a result of its 'discursive form' (e.g. practices, instruments, relations)."[1] Therefore, once the discourse is accomplished, it must be translated into social practices in order to be completed and effective – "If no 'meaning' is taken, there can be no 'consumption'." Each of these steps helps defines the one that follows, while remaining clearly distinct.[1] Thus, even though each of these moments (stages) are equally important to the process as a whole, they do not completely ensure that the following moment will necessary happen. "Each can constitute its own break or interruption of the 'passage of forms' on whose continuity the flow of effective production (i.e. reproduction) depends."[1]
These four stages are:[1]
Production – This is where the encoding, the construction of a message begins. Production process has its own "discursive" aspect, as it is also framed by meanings and ideas; by drawing upon society's dominant ideologies, the creator of the message is feeding off of society's beliefs, and values. Numerous factors are involved in the production process. On one hand "knowledge-in-use concerning the routines of production, technical skills, professional ideologies, institutional knowledge, definitions and assumptions, assumptions about the audience"[1] form the "production structures of the television."[1] On the other hand, "topics, treatments, agendas, events, personnel, images of the audience, ‘definitions of the situation' from other sources and other discursive formations"[1] form the other part of wider socio-cultural and political structure.
Circulation – How individuals perceive things: visual vs. written. How things are circulated influences how audience members will receive the message and put it to use. According to Philip Elliott the audience is both the "source" and the "receiver" of the television message. For example, circulation and reception of a media message are incorporated in the production process through numerous "feedbacks." So circulation and perception, although not identical, are certainly related to and involved into the production process.
Use (distribution or consumption) – For a message to be successfully "realized", "the broadcasting structures must yield encoded messages in the form of a meaningful discourse."[1] This means that the message has to be adopted as a meaningful discourse and it has to be meaningfully decoded. However, the decoding/interpreting of a message requires active recipients.
Reproduction – This stage is directly after audience members have interpreted a message in their own way based on their experiences and beliefs. The decoded meanings are the ones with "an effect" (e.g. influence, instruct, entertain) with "very complex perceptual, cognitive, emotional, ideological or behavioral consequences."[1] What is done with the message after it has been interpreted is where this stage comes in. At this point, you will see whether individuals take action after they have been exposed to a specific message.
Encoding and decoding of broadcast structures
Since discursive form plays such an important role in a communicative process, Hall suggests that "encoding" and "decoding" are "determinate moments."[1] What he means by that is that an event, for example, cannot be transmitted in its "raw format." A person would have to be physically at the place of the event to see it in such format. Rather, he states that events can only be transported to the audience in the audio-visual forms of televisual discourse (that is, the message goes to processes of production and distribution). This is when the other determinant moment begins – decoding, or interpretation of the images and messages through a wider social, cultural, and political cognitive spectrum (that is, the processes of consumption and reproduction).
"The event must become a 'story' before it can become a communicative event."
- Stuart Hall, 1980, "Encoding/decoding"[1]
Application of model[edit]
This model has been adopted and applied by many media theorists since Hall developed it. Hall's work has been central to the development of cultural studies, and continues today because of the importance of decoding. Cultural Studies started challenging the mainstream media effects models in 1960. The main focus was how audience members make meanings and understand reality through their use of cultural symbols in both print and visual media.[5] It is important to look at cultural research because its focus on daily experiences, looking at race, gender, class and sexuality all help bring meaning to the world we live in today. Theorists such as Dick Hebdige, David Morley, and Janice Radway have been heavily influenced by Hall, and applied his theory to help develop their own:
Hebdige was a British cultural and critic scholar who studied under Hall at the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies. His model builds from Hall's idea of Subculture. He is most known for his influential book Subculture: The Meaning of Style where he argues that younger generations are challenging dominant ideologies by developing distinct styles and practices that manifest their separate identity, and subversions. His exploration of the punk subculture outlines the potential causes and influences of the punk movement, especially for the youth. His extensive study on subcultures and its resistance against mainstream society showed that the punk subculture used commodification to differentiate themselves from, or become accepted by, the mainstream.< Hebdige believed that punk was incorporated into the media in an attempt to categorize it within society, and he critically examines this issue by applying Hall's theory of encoding and decoding.
David Morley is a sociologist who studies the sociology of the television audience. Known for being a key researcher in conducting The Nationwide Project in the late 1970s, Morley took this popular news program that aired daily on BBC. It reported on national news from London and the major events of the day, and was broadcast throughout the UK. He applied Hall's reception theory to study the encoding/decoding model of this news program. This study focused on the ways this program addressed the audience member and the ideological themes it presented. Morley then took it a step further and conducted a qualitative research that included individuals with varying social backgrounds. This was where Hall's research came into play. He wanted to see how they would react to certain clips of the program based on Hall's three decoding methods: dominant/hegemonic, negotiated, or oppositional.
Janice Radway, an American literacy and cultural studies scholar, conducted a study on women in terms of romance reading. In her book Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy and Popular Literature Radway studied a group of midwestern women that were fans of romance novels. She argued that this cultural activity functioned as personal time for women that didn't typically have any personal time to themselves.[5] Although her work was not seen as scientific, and her study applied only to a small group of women, she was interested in interpreting how women could relate their everyday life to a fiction book.[5] As a result, her study demonstrated that these studies define culture in very broad terms, because in the end culture is made up of the symbols of expression that society uses to make sense of everyday life.[5] Radway's audience research worked off of Hall's theory of encoding/decoding. Studying how specific individuals receive and interpret messages based on their backgrounds was something that played a huge role in Radway's study on women. Some women related to the book and some identified as though they were characters in the book; but the meaning, dependent upon their backgrounds, identities and beliefs, circulates within society and is reinforced by Hall's theory of encoding/decoding.
Dominant/hegemonic position[edit]
Communication theorist Stuart Hall argues that there are three positions that people may take upon decoding a television message. He argues three different positions because "decodings do not follow inevitably from encodings.[6]" Thus, just because a message is encoded on television in a particular way, it does not mean it will be decoded in its intended format. This lays the foundation for Hall's hypothetical positions—he needs multiple positions because there are multiple interpretations that could occur. These positions are known as the dominant-hegemonic position, the negotiated position, and the oppositional position.
The first position that he discusses is the dominant-hegemonic code. This code or position is one where the consumer takes the actual meaning directly, and decodes it exactly the way it was encoded. For instance, political and military elites primarily generated the politics of Northern Ireland and the Chilean Coup. These elites created the "hegemonic interpretations"[7] Because these ideas were hegemonic interpretations, they became dominant. Hall demonstrates that if a viewer of a newscast on such topics decoded the message "in terms of the reference code in which it has been encoded" that the viewer would be "operating inside the dominant code"[8] Thus, the dominant code involves taking the connotative meaning of a message in the exact way a sender intended a message to be interpreted (decoded). Under this framework, the consumer is located within the dominant point of view, and is fully sharing the texts codes and accepts and reproduces the intended meaning. Here, there is barely any misunderstanding because both the sender and receiver have the same cultural biases.[9] This means that the intended message was created by the dominant class and that the recipient was also a part of the dominant point of view.
A modern-day example of the dominant-hegemonic code is described by communication scholar Garrett Castleberry in his upcoming article "Understanding Stuart Hall's 'Encoding/Decoding' Through AMC's Breaking Bad". Castleberry argues that there is a dominant-hegemonic "position held by the entertainment industry that illegal drug side-effects cause less damage than perceived". If this is the dominant code and television shows like Breaking Bad support such perceptions, then they are operating within the dominant code[10] Likewise, a viewer believing such perceptions will also be operating within the dominant-hegemonic code since they are encoding the message in the way it is intended.
Negotiated position[edit]
Another hypothetical position is the negotiated position. This position is a mixture of accepting and rejecting elements. Readers are acknowledging the dominant message, but are not willing to completely accept the message the way the encoder intended. The reader to a certain extent, shares the texts code and generally accepts the preferred meaning, but is simultaneously resisting and modifying it in a way which reflects their own experiences and interests.
Hall explains this when he states "decoding within the negotiated version contains a mixture of adaptive and oppositional elements: it acknowledges the legitimacy of the hegemonic definitions to make the grand significations (abstract), while, at a more restricted, situational (situated) level, it makes its own ground rules- it operates with exceptions to the rule".[1] Basically, this means that people understand the dominant position, they generally believe the position, but they are in a situation where they must make up their own separate rules to coexist with the dominant position. Hall provides an example involving an Industrial Relations Bill. In his example, he shows how a factory worker may recognize and agree with the dominant position that a wage freeze is beneficial. However, while the worker may recognize that the wage freeze is needed, they may not be willing to partake in a wage freeze since it will directly affect them rather than others [11] His example demonstrates that people may negotiate a code to work around their own beliefs and self-interests. This code is very much based on context.
Once more, Castleberry demonstrates the negotiated code at play in a modern-day television show. In "Breaking Bad," Walter, the main character had a divorce, and many viewers had negotiated "an acceptance of Walter's sins, while communicating negative discourse concerning Skylar [his wife]". This negative discourse, according to the actor who played Walter's wife was because her character, Skylar did not fit what was expected of a wife. This expectation could be seen as a dominant code. In addition, Walter's actions were against the dominant code. Because of these conflicting dominant codes, Castleberry implies that many viewers negotiated their own code where Walter's actions were accepted due to Skylar's role as an untraditional wife.[10]
Oppositional position[edit]
Lastly, there is the oppositional position or code. Hall summarizes that a viewer can understand the literal (denotative) and connotative meanings of a message while decoding a message in a globally contrary way. This means that a person recognizes that their meaning is not the dominant meaning, or what was intended, but alters the message in their mind to fit an "alternative framework of reference"[12] Thus, readers' or viewers social situation has placed them in a directly oppositional relationship to the dominant code, and although they understand the intended meaning they do not share the text's code and end up rejecting it. Again, this code is based very much on experiences. One's personal experiences will likely influence them to take on the oppositional position when they encode hegemonic positions. Highly political discourse emerges from these oppositional codes as "events which are normally signified and decoded in a negotiated way begin to be given an oppositional reading."[13]
The encoding/decoding model critique[edit]
Ross[14] suggests two ways to modify Hall's typology of the Encoding/Decoding Model by expanding the original version.[1] While presenting the modified typology, Ross stresses that his suggested version doesn't imply to replace the original model but rather to expand it and to let the model work in a new way. Further is the explanation of one of the alternative models suggested by Ross,[14] which is a more complex typology consisting of nine combinations of encoding and decoding positions (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The reasons why the original model needs to be revisited and the alternative model description to follow.
In line with previous scholarship criticizing Hall's model, Ross[14] and Morley[15] argue that the model has some unsolved problems. First, Morley mentions that in the decoding stage there is a need to distinguish comprehension of the text and its evaluation. Comprehension here refers to the reader's understanding of the text in the basic sense and the sender's intention, and to possible readers interpretations of the text (borrowed from Schroder[16]). Evaluation is how readers relate the text to the ideological position (also borrowed from Schroder[16]).
Second, Morley[15] discusses the problem of understanding the concept of ‘oppositional reading'. There might be confusion between referring ‘oppositional reading' to rejecting the preferred meaning (dominant ideology) and to disagreement with the text. For example, imagine that an oppositional TV channel produced a news story about some flaws in the ObamaCare. According to the original model, a reader can fully share the text's code and accept its meaning, or reject it and bring an alternative frame of it. In the first case nevertheless a reader fully agrees with the text, s/he would be in opposition to the dominant ideology (we understand dominant ideology here as promoting government initiatives), while in the second case by disagreeing with the news story a reader would actually favor dominant ideology. That leads to the final problem of the original model -- assuming that all the media encode texts within the dominant ideology and thus suggesting that media is homogeneous in nature.[14]
In order to address these problems, Ross[14] suggests two steps in modifying the original model. The first step is to distinguish between the graphical model and the typology, which is different decoding positions (dominant-hegemonic, negotiated, and oppositional). The second step is to divide the model into two versions, an ideology version (Figure 1) and a text-related version (Figure 2).
Figure 1. The modified encoding/decoding typology (ideology version)[14]
ENCODING POSITIONS
Dominant-hegemonic encoding
(Hall's assumed mode)
Negotiated Encoding
(partly critical text)
Oppositional encoding
(a radical text)
DECODING POSITIONS
(ideological)
Dominant-hegemonic
position
Dominant-hegemonic reading
of dominant-hegemonic text
Dominant-hegemonic reading
of negotiated text
= Neutralization
Dominant-hegemonic reading
of oppositional text
= Neutralization
Negotiated position Negotiated reading
of dominant-hegemonic text
Negotiated reading
of negotiated text
Negotiated reading
of oppositional text
Oppositional position Oppositional reading
of dominant-hegemonic text
Oppositional reading
of negotiated text
= Amplification of critique
Oppositional reading
of oppositional text
= Agreement with oppositional text
The main addition to both new typologies of Hall's model is adding two types of encoding meanings, which are a Negotiated position and an Oppositional position. As the original model makes all media institutions encode messages in the dominant-hegemonic manner,[1] Ross[14] takes a step further and ‘allow' media institutions to encode texts according to the oppositional or negotiated framework. Thus, media texts in both Hall's versions can be dominant-hegemonic (Hall's assumed mode), partly critical or radical.
Another addition to the original model is the appearance of a Neutralization category meaning that media texts encoded within an oppositional or negotiated framework are decoded according to the dominant ideology. Let's look at the upper right corner of the Ross ideology version (Figure 1) at the cell when a radical text intersects with a dominant-hegemonic decoding position. For example, neutralization will happen if a TV news report conveying a message about an oppositional political party in Russia may be interpreted by a conservative viewer as an evidence of the US sponsorship of anti-government organizations underlying Russian independency. Let's now look at the lower right corner of the same version at the cell when a radical text is decoded by viewers within an oppositional position. In this case ‘oppositional reading of oppositional text' needs explanation that it equals to the "agreement with oppositional text" as readers text evaluation might cause misunderstanding.
Figure 2. The modified encoding/decoding typology (text-relative version)[14]
ENCODING POSITIONS
Dominant-hegemonic encoding
(Hall's assumed mode)
Negotiated Encoding
(partly critical text)
Oppositional encoding
(a radical text)
DECODING POSITIONS
(text-relative)
Text-accepting
position
Text-acceptance
of dominant-hegemonic text
Text-acceptance
of negotiated text
Text-acceptance
of oppositional text
Text-negotiation
position
Negotiation of
dominant-hegemonic text
Negotiation of
negotiated text
Negotiation of
oppositional text
Text-oppositional
position
Text-oppositional
reading of dominant-hegemonic
text
Text-oppositional
reading of negotiated
text
Text-oppositional
reading of oppositional text
= Neutralization
In order to avoid misinterpretations and to make an alternative typology more reader-friendly, Ross suggests a text-relative version that stresses not the ideological tendency of the text, but rather if receivers are in agreement or opposition with any kind of text.[14] In this version Ross changed the term 'dominant-hegemonic' to ‘text-acceptance'; and the term 'oppositional' to ‘text-oppositional' in order to remind readers the difference between opposition to the dominant ideology and opposition to the text.
In the text-relative version a Neutralization category moved to the lower right cell while saving its meaning. Neutralization means applying dominant ideology to the radical text or rejecting oppositional texts.
To conclude, while Hall's Encoding/Decoding model of communication is highly evaluated and widely used in research, it has been criticised as it contains some unsolved problems. This section discussed some flaws in the original model summarized by Ross[14] and introduced one of the alternative ways to modify Hall's typology.
See also[edit]
Aberrant decoding
References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. Culture, media, language, 128-138. Retrieved from: http://www.hu.mtu.edu/~jdslack/readings/CSReadings/Hall_Encoding-n-Decoding.pdf
Jump up ^ Kelly, Aidan, Katrina Lawlor, and Stephanie O'Donohoe. "Chapter 8- Encoding Advertisements: The Creative Perspective." The Advertising and Consumer Culture Reader. By Joseph Turow and Matthew P. McAllister. New York: Routledge, 2009. 133–49.
Jump up ^ In Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Love, and Paul Willis (eds.), Culture, Media, Language, pp. 128–38. London: Hutchinson, 1980. In Stuart Hall; Meenakshi Gigi Durham; Douglas M. Kellner, eds. (2001). "Encoding/Decoding". Media And Cultural Studies: Keyworks: 171. External link in |journal= (help)
^ Jump up to: a b Bankovic, M. (2013). Business communication: script. Retrieved from: http://www.vts.edu.rs/images/nastava/PoslovneKomunikacije/POSLOVNE_KOMUNIKACIJE-skripta.pdf
^ Jump up to: a b c d Campbell, Richard. Media & Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2003.
Jump up ^ Media and Cultural Studies (KeyWorks in Cultural Studies) Edited by Durham and Keller. Written by Stuart Hall. p. 171
Jump up ^ Media and Cultural Studies (KeyWorks in Cultural Studies. Edited by Durham and Keller. Written by Stuart Hall. p.171.
Jump up ^ .Media and Cultural Studies (KeyWorks in Cultural Studies. Edited by Durham and Keller. Written by Stuart Hall.
Jump up ^ "Audiences and Reception Theory." Julie Martin: Community Manager / Animatrice De Communaute. 2007.
^ Jump up to: a b .Understanding Stuart Hall's 'Encoding/Decoding' Through AMC's Breaking Bad Forthcoming Communication Basics for Millennials: Essays on Communication Theory and Culture. Roberts, K, & Hickly, J. (Eds.). New York: Peter Lang. p. 90. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/16236006/_Understanding_Stuart_Halls_Encoding_Decoding_Model_through_TVs_Breaking_Bad_In_Communication_Theory_and_Millennial_Popular_Culture_Essays_and_Applications._Roberts_K._and_Kickly_J._Eds._._New_York_Peter_Lang
Jump up ^ .Media and Cultural Studies (KeyWorks in Cultural Studies. Edited by Durham and Keller. Written by Stuart Hall. p. 172
Jump up ^ .Media and Cultural Studies (KeyWorks in Cultural Studies. Edited by Durham and Keller. Written by Stuart Hall p. 173
Jump up ^ Media and Cultural Studies (KeyWorks in Cultural Studies. Edited by Durham and Keller. Written by Stuart Hall p. 173
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Ross, S. (2011, May 25th). The encoding/decoding model revisited: Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association. Boston, MA.
^ Jump up to: a b Morley, D. (2006). Unanswered questions in audience research. Communication Review 9(2), 101-121.
^ Jump up to: a b Schrøder, K. (2000). Making sense of audience discourses: Towards a multidimensional model of mass media reception. European Journal of Cultural Studies 3(2), 233-258.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encoding/decoding_model_of_communication&oldid=823526829"
Categories:
Literary theory
Media theories
Hidden categories:
CS1 errors: external links
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Čeština
עברית
Русский
Українська
Edit links
This page was last edited on 1 February 2018, at 20:06.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: b

value: sup

values: Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies

value: p

attrs: href class title

values: /wiki/Semantic mw-redirect Semantic

values:
/wiki/Cultural_Studies
mw-redirect
Cultural Studies

values: Edit section: Dominant/hegemonic position

values: Edit section: The encoding/decoding model critique

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: מודל הצפנה/פענוח – Hebrew

values: Теория Холла – Russian

values: Теорія Голла – Ukrainian

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Encoding_decoding_model_of_communication rootpage-Encoding_decoding_model_of_communication skin-vector action-view