Semiotics


 * Definition**

Apart from the prefix “ic,” used to turn adjectives into nouns, the Oxford English Dictionary online gives no etymology for the word “semiotics” leading one to believe that the word itself has not changed over time. What has changed, as illustrated by the two definitions of the OED, is the meaning of the word. From the original definition of “the branch of medical science relating to the interpretation of symptoms” to its more familiar use as, “the science of communication studied through the interpretation of signs and symbols as they operate in various fields, esp. language,” (Semiotics, 2010) is the evolution of a concept.

It is therefore possible to conceive of a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life. It would form part of social psychology, and hence of general psychology. We shall call it semiology (from the Greek semeion, ‘sign’). It would investigate the nature of signs and the laws governing them. Since it does not yet exist, one cannot say for certain that it will exist. But it has a right to exist, a place ready for it in advance. (Saussure, 1986; pp. 15-16, emphasis original)

The above quote recognizably from Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics which debuted in 1916 defends Saussure’s title as “the father of semiotics.” Given the fact that Saussure himself did a great deal to establish the field of semiotics, with his explication on the nature of signs and sign systems in the appendix to General Linguistics, his expressed doubt earlier in the text seems more than a little ironic.

Another quote from a founding semiotician will shed light on why an encyclopedic entry of this sort is so difficult to write, “Semiotic has for its goal a general theory of signs in all their forms and manifestations, whether in animals or men, whether normal or pathological, whether linguistic or nonlinguistic, whether personal or social. Semiotic is thus an interdisciplinary enterprise” (Morris, 1964; p.1). Morris’ definition is broader in scope than the definition provided by the OED. However, for the purpose of this entry semiotics will be explored in a way that lines up more closely with the OED’s definition than that of the semiotician. That is, this entry will attempt to illustrate the difference between Saussure and Peirce’s conception of sign systems and then comment on Barthes and Silverstein to to provide the reader with an idea of the evolution of the concept of semiotics as it applies to the discipline of communication from its inception to the present.[1]

Within the field of semiotics there are two foundational questions. First, what is a sign? Second, how are signs used? This second question opens the way to the idea of sign systems, communities of sign-users, and has been responsible for much of the proliferation of scholarship collected under the heading of semiotics. However, the first question must be answered before scholars are able to move to the second. Many theorists have attempted to answer this first question but there are two preeminent scholars whose work stands above the rest and to which other scholars keep turning time and time again.

One of these scholars is, of course, Ferdinand Saussure. In the appendix to General Linguistics Saussure lays out his basic ideas of the nature of signs and sign systems. According to Saussure there are two general principles governing the use of signs: the sign is arbitrary and signs have a linear character, meaning they occupy a space and time and that occupation can only be measured in one direction. From these two general principles Saussure develops the ideas of the variability and invariability of signs. Signs are invariable because of their arbitrary nature and the complexity of sign systems. The fact that any language will be made up of almost innumerable signs and that these signs interact in complex ways, relying on their relations with other signs to construct meaning, are Saussure’s second and third reasons for arguing that signs are invariable. The fourth reason, to which Saussure ascribes the most importance, is that collective inertia protects individual signs from change. Saussure allows that there can be changes between the sign and the signified and these changes, which can be documented but not observed, are the evolution of language. Thus, Saussure conceives of an interaction between a sign system and a sign-using community taking place over time (Saussure, 1964; pp. 70-78). For a complete list of Saussure's work and related readings, see page 267 through 271 of //The Cambridge Companion to Saussure// (2004).


 * Classification of Signs (Peirce)**

Charles Peirce focused on the nature of signs to create an elegant way of classifying signs. Peirce has three divisions of signs each of which has three sub-categories. The first division of signs refers to properties of the signs themselves and includes the following:
 * qualisign (a quality which is a sign),
 * sinsign (an actual thing which is a sign); and
 * legisign (a law, usually established by human consensus, which is a sign).

The second division of signs refers to how a sign relates to its object and includes the following:
 * icon (a sign which is like the object or is used as a sign for the object),
 * index (a sign for an object because it is actually affected by that object), and
 * symbol (a sign for an object because a law connects them).

The third division refers to how signs relate to their interpretant and includes the following:
 * rheme (a sign which represents a possible object),
 * a dicent sign (a sign for an actually existent object), and
 * an argument (a sign of law) (Peirce, 1955; pp. 101-109).

According to Peirce, there are ten possible classifications of these signs. The restriction to ten follows from the fact that combinations of categories are based of the relationship of sign, object, and interpretant (Tejera, 1988; p. 18). Whereas Saussure never lets the reader forget the relation between a sign and a sign-user, one gets the sense that Peirce’s classification, except for the signs that depend on law (sign user consensus), would be much the same without a sign user.

In the seminal 1977 piece “Rhetoric of the Image,” Roland Barthes, inspired by Saussure, analyzes the uses of signs within an advertisement for an Italian food products. Barthes identifies three types of messages within the print advertisement under consideration: a linguistic message, denoted message, and connoted message. The linguistic message can serve either the purpose of anchoring (guiding perception) or relay (conveying messages not to be found in the image itself) (Barthes, 1985; 196-198).

According to Barthes, “the denoted images naturalizes the symbolic message” (Barthes, p. 201) meaning that, though there is an image presented, there is no code inherent in the image and so the image itself seems natural and without code. The connoted message exists in an almost symbiotic relationship with the denoted image. The connoted image is full of meaning from the sources of metonymy and ideology. This meaning is both expressed in the image and brought to the image by the viewer. While the connoted image conveys a message the denoted image makes that message seem natural (Barthes, 202-204). While Barthes analysis itself is fascinating it is the application of Saussurean semiotics to an the image that is really worthwhile. For instance, his definition of the connoted image echoes the fundamental interplay between sign and sign user in Saussure’s semiotics.

Though Michael Silverstein never references Peirce in his analysis of language and culture in which he argues that certain speech acts are the only form of culture that evokes symbolism (1976, p. 220) a reader would be hard pressed to make sense of Silverstein’s definitions referential and non-referential index without first encountering Peirce. Although this piece is not strictly Peircean, Silverstein’s classification of speech acts according to index, function, and meta-pragmatics has a love of order not uncharacteristic of Peirce. However, Silverstein brilliantly applies the ideas of index and reference to speech acts to delineate the difference between culture in language and in speech. By applying semiotic principles to the study of culture in away that is not classifiable strictly in the usual terms of structuralism or post-structuralism or linguistic Silverstein creates an interesting new place for semiotics within communicative, linguistic, and cultural studies[NO2].

The discussion of semiotics branches into the discussion of polysemy, which occurs when multiple sign users interpret signs to have multiple "meanings" or "senses" that create ambiguity of understanding (Paulin, 7). Though polysemy has a rich history in semantic studies, it also plays a role in cultural studies that examine texts such as film and television shows for the signs put on display. Polysemy as a research approach acknowledges the subjectivity of the researcher and does not make attempts to establish the formal or official meaning of signs for all sign users.

Minor revision: Lindsay Anderson (August 2012).

include component="comments" page="page:Semiotics" limit="10"


 * References**

Barthes, R. (1977) Rhetoric of the image. In R. Innis (Ed.), //Semiotics: An introductory anthology// (190-205). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Morris, C. (1964). Beranek, L., & Jakobson, R., & Locke, W. (Eds.), //Signification and Significance//. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.

Paulin, C., & Bejoint, H. (2008). Introduction. Lexis: E-Journal in English Lexicology. Retrieved from: []

Peirce, C. S. (1955). Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In Buchler, J. (Ed.), // Philosophical Writings of Peirce. // (Chapter seven). New York: Dover.

Saussure, F. (1986). Bally, C., & Sechehaye, A., & Riedlinger, A. (Eds.), //Course in general linguistics.// (R. Harris, Trans.). La Salle, IL: Open Court.

Semiotics. (2010). In //Oxford English Dictionary online//. Retrieved from []

Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifteres, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, K. H. & Selby. H. A. (Eds.) //Meaning in Anthropology// (187-221). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Tejera, V. (1988). //Semiotics from Peirce to Barthe//s. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

Works by Saussure and further reading. (2004). Sanders, C. (Ed.), //The Cambridge Companion to Saussure//. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

[1] Semiotics, as a method of study, has produced fascinating scholarship from fields as disparate as evolutionary biology and literary criticism. Much to the author’s regret it is simply impossible to give an exhaustive exploration of the diverse scholarship collected under the title of semiotics. Daniel Chandler’s online resource is an excellent hypertext source which allows the interested reader to get a feel for the diversity of the scholarship influenced by semiotics both within and outside the discipline of communication.