First Task: Reading Assignment

Lesson 3 Semiotics and the Study of Signs

Words are but the signs of ideas.

~ Samuel Johnson

Warm-up

Mark x the statements you agree with:

( ) All societies have the same traffic rules.

( ) The color red can be pink for some people.
( ) Spellings change the meaning of the words.
( ) Advertisements influence my decision in buying products.
( ) Pink is for women and blue is for men.

Semiotics

Semiotics is the study of signs and their meanings in the society. It is concerned with
everything that can be taken as a sign (Eco, 1976). At its simplest definitions, a sign is something
which can stand for something else; it is anything that has and can convey meaning. So we live in a
world full of signs such as the dress we are wearing, the photographs that we take, the traffic lights
and rules that we follow or even the people we communicate with in different situations. In semiotic
sense, signs take the form of words, images, sounds, gestures and objects. Contemporary
semioticians study signs not in isolation but as part of semiotic sign system (Chandlers, 2007). The
significance of semiotics as a discipline and field of study is it helps us understand how meanings
are made and how reality is represented, and thus, emphasizing the processes of how concepts can
be constructed and manipulated.

Contemporary semiotics stem from two traditions of thought. It relies heavily on the
contributions from the Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure and the American philosopher, Charles
Sanders Peirce. This article discusses in depth the fundamental meanings of signs, its variations
and practical significance from the perspectives of these two scholars.

Ferdinand de Saussure: Signifier, Signified

and the Making of Language

“It is possible to conceive of a science which studies the role of signs as part
Language is also of social life. We shall call it semiology (from the Greek semeion “sign”). It would
a means to investigate the nature of signs and the laws governing them”, thus declares the
understand Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure in his book General Linguistics, a
things and not
just to define
them.
First Task: Reading Assignment

compilation of his notes which was published posthumously. Saussure used the term semiology to
refer to the method and process of sign making and meaning making. For Saussure, “nothing is
more important than the study of languages to bring out the nature of the semiological problem.
Drawing heavily on linguistics, he referred to language as the most important of all the systems of
signs. It is the central and is the interpreting system of all other systems, linguistic and nonlinguistic.

Before Saussure’s semiology, language was generally seen as a natural way to name
things. He argued instead that language is also a means to understand things and not just to define
them. For example, this picture of my cat can be expressed differently in different languages. In
Filipino it is “ang aking pusa”, in Japanese “watshi no neko”, in Bahasa Indonesia “kucing saya”. We
might be looking the same way at the cat but the word we have in our head, as Saussure argues,
and the way the words interacts with other words in our native language adds to the connotation,
sense and imagery which gives us a different understanding and expectations of the word “cat”.

Saussure’s works focuses on the way language is made. Just as a mechanic needs to know
the parts of a machine in order to understand how it works, Saussure also stressed the need to
study the components of a language in order not only to understand it but also to manipulate in order
to convey the desired message. He starts by arguing that all languages are made up of signs and by
putting together signs, it is also possible to create complex messages and meanings.

Saussure’s model of the sign is in the dyadic tradition. He defines a sign as being composed
of a signifier and a signified. He emphasizes that a linguistic sign is not a link between a thing and a
name but between a concept (signified) and a sound pattern (signifier). The signifier is usually the
word or symbol that carries the sound pattern or signifier. The sound pattern is not actually a sound
because sound is something physical. A sound pattern is the hearer’s psychological impression of a
sound, as given to him by the evidence of his senses. For example, the word CAR is not actually a
car. It can be carried by any other string of letters. It just so happened that in English, the meaning is
carried by the letter C-A-R and thus there is no inherent or natural relationship between the signified
and the signifier. This “trigger”, this association is caused by the conventionality of a language
shared by a group of people who happens to have the same impression of the word C-A-R.

Saussure illustrated the relationship of the signifier and the signified with the diagram below.
The sign therefore is the whole that results from the association of the signifier with the signified.
This association is known as the process of “signification” and this is represented by the arrows in
the diagram. With the arrows, and in the process of signification, the word T-R-E-E, the hearer
associates it with the things which has leaves, branches, bark. The arrow signifies interplay between
words TREE and the sound pattern which is evoked or triggered by such word. Signification results
to reading or interpreting the meaning of the sign. Signification is not possible when the signifier is
totally meaningless or the signified is formless. Thus, sign is meaning and form.
First Task: Reading Assignment

Another linguistic example is the word “open” when it is invested with meaning by someone
who encounters it in a shop doorway. This is a sign consisting of a signifier: the word “open” and the
signified concept: that the shop is open for business.

The idea of sign only works when it is read against/together with other signs. A reader of a
sign must establish a system on how to read it. Sign systems maybe influenced by external factors
such as the culture, orientation (race, sex, gender, religion) of the reader. Signs, according to
Saussure, refer primarily to each other. Within the language system, everything depends on
relations and no sign makes sense on its own but only in relation to other signs. The word “open” for
example, will have a different signified concept when seen in a can or bottle or a door, thus meaning
or signification, even with the same sign, can be arbitrary or unstable.

The importance of Saussure’s definition of sign and its relational value is that it shows the
function and purpose of language: to connect thoughts and sound so as to communicate meaning
within a group of people who decides on the meanings of the signs.

Charles Sanders Peirce: Index, Symbol

and Icon

If Saussure proposes a dyadic model of signs, the American pragmatist philosopher Charles
Sanders Peirce offered a triadic (three-part) model consisting of:

1. The representamen. This is sometimes called by some semioticians as the “sign vehicle”
and the material or form which the sign takes. Example: the wearing of “barong tagalog” to
celebrate National Heroes Day.
2. An object. Also called the referent, this is something beyond what the sign refers to.
Example: The Filipinos’ notion that the “barong tagalog” is a national costume because of its history.

3. An interpretant: What one makes sense of the sign after reading it from a certain sign
system. Example: The wearing of “barong tagalog” during National Heroes Day is being nationalistic.

These three elements are essential in sign making. The three must be present and unified.
The interaction of these elements is called by Peirce as “semiosis”. Representation (C. the object),
the manner of representation (A. representamen) and interpretation (B. interpretant) are the
processes that need to be understood in the sign making. This Peircean model is illustrated below:

Daniel Chandler in his book, Semiotics : The Basics, (2007) used the metaphor of “reading
the label” on an opaque box that contains an object in understanding the Peircian model of sign. The
label suggests that something is in the box. The label will tell us what the box contains. The box and
the label which can function as representamen will be the first things that we notice. This will give us
First Task: Reading Assignment

the idea or a mental picture that something is in the box (object). The interpretant provides the
realization as well as the knowledge of what the box contains. “Reading the label” then is an apt
metaphor in decoding or in the sign making processes. This metaphor will make us realize that a
sign is always hidden. The label will prevent us from immediately opening the box and knowing what
is inside. To do so would eliminate the necessity of reading the sign or putting or at the basic level,
of having a sign. The concept of a sign can never work for something that is so obvious. Images, or
mental pictures stimulated by the label prompts the decoding process. Thus, for Peirce, the hidden
meaning can be visible through the interaction of the representamen, the object and the interpretant.

The representamen can be synonymous to Saussure’s signifier while the interpretant can be
compared to the signified. However, Peirce brought the idea of the signified to another level or
dimension. Since he considers semiosis as the process of creating signs, the interpretant can be
considered as a sign itself (the interaction between the object and the representamen). For Eco
(1976), the process of making sense of an interpretant can lead to the creation of an endless
number of new interpretants. He calls this “unlimited semiosis” to refer to the process which can
lead to a series of successive, endless interpretants. Thus, representation is just part of the process
of sign making. Meaning is not found in the representation but should emerge from the
interpretation.

For example, wearing a national costume is a representation of nationalism but not yet
nationalism itself. This act has to be interpreted within other signs which is the “context” of this
particular act so that a possible meaning of nationalism can emerge.
Another contribution of Peirce to the field of semiotics is the categorization of signs. For
Peirce, signs can be an index, icon or symbol. It should be noted that these categories can be read
or interpreted depending on the modes of relationship between the sign vehicle and what is
signified.

1. Icon/Iconic mode – imitation is the process undergone by a sign in order to be an icon.

The object (signifier) is seen to be physically similar with the signified. Drawing , portrait,
photograph, cartoon are considered to be iconic signs.

2. Index/indexical mode –Signs must undergo the process of association. Causality of the
object (signifier) to the representamen (signified) must be considered. Medical symptoms, thunder,
rain, smoke to indicate fire, handwriting, catchphrases, logos are considered to be indeces.

3. Symbol/symbolic – Establishing the relationship within a speech community is important

for a sign to become a symbol. This is because the object (signifier) does not bear resemblance to
the representamen (signified) and the meaning must therefore be established and agreed upon by a
group of users. Examples of symbols are morse codes, language, numbers, traffic lights, national
flags).

With these three modes of signs, Peirce has broadened the Saussurean dyadic model of
sign. Signs have expanded beyond “concept” and “sound”, between “sense” and “reference”. These
categories necessitate the understanding of the degree of conventionality of which these signs work.
High conventionality is indicated by symbolic signs while direct association characterizes indexical
signs. On the other hand, a degree of conventionality is always expected of iconic signs. (Peirce,
1938). The functions of these signs can also be determined by their motivation. Motivation of signs is
defined as the extent to which the representamen (signified) determines the signifier (object). A high
degree of motivation is expected when an object (signifier) is constrained by the representamen
(signified) such that symbolic signs, because they arbitrary are unmotivated while iconic signs are
highly motivated. It can be deduced then that more learning of an agreed convention is required
when the sign is less motivated (Chandler, 2007).
First Task: Reading Assignment

Source:

Balgoa et al. (2018). Purposive Communication. Davao, Philippines: Mutya Publishing

House.

For further readings, students may refer to the 1st and 2nd chapters of this PDF Books which can
be accessed through these links:

Chandler, Daniel. The basics of semiotics.

http://www.wayanswardhani.lecture.ub.ac.id/files/2013/09/Semiotics-the-Basics.pdf

Sebeok, Thomas. Signs: an introduction to semiotics

http://www.wayanswardhani.lecture.ub.ac.id/files/2013/09/Semiotics-the-Basics.pdf

Comprehension Questions

This is a time bound activity. It is the teacher’s discretion to set the allotted time. For easier
checking, teacher can limit the number of sentences depending on the level of difficulty of
the questions.

1. What is sign for Saussure? How does his definition change/modify your own meaning of
the word?

2. What is entailed in the process of signification? Where does it start? Is it from signifier to
the signified or from the signified to the signifier?

3. What is the meaning of arbitrary in this sentence: “meaning or signification, even with the
same sign, can be arbitrary or unstable.” In what way does it support Saussure’s
definition of sign?

4. What is language then based on Saussure’s definition of sign?

5. What is sign for Peirce? How does his definition differ from that of Saussure?

6. In what way did Peirce’s idea of “signs within context” similar or different from that of
Saussure’s “relational meaning of signs”?

7. Can a sign be an index, icon and symbol simultaneously?

8. What is meant by “conventionality” in semiotics? Why are symbols highly

conventional and indexes are not?
First Task: Reading Assignment