Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Isthesignifierarbitrary
Isthesignifierarbitrary
Isthesignifierarbitrary
Anyone interested in linguistics will know that for Ferdinand Saussure, the father
of modern structuralism, post-structuralism and semiotics, there existed a "signi-
fier" and "signified": the "signifier" was the linguistic term or phrase used to con-
vey meaning and the "signified" was the object referred to. However, that is not
quite true. Saussure bracketed the referent (or "thing-in-itself") and declared that
the "signifier" referred not to something in the real world, but to a concept in our
minds. This is to say, that for Saussure, the linguistic phrase was representative of
our "idea" of reality--but not necessarily reality as it really is. For example, we
know very well what a corner is--but where does a corner begin and end? Our
perception tells us one thing, but possibly the reality is something else. For these
reasons of verification, Saussure avoided saying that the signified is an object in
the real world: on the contrary, the signified is only a concept in our own minds.
The signifier, for Saussure was "arbitrary", in the sense that there was no neces-
sary connection between the linguistic phrase and the thing or idea represented.
For example, "a house" could just as easily be called "a shoe" as long as everyone
accepted the new meaning ("A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" as
Shakespeare puts it).