Semiotics for Beginners

Daniel Chandler

Order the book!

Online Greek Translation (1999) Unofficial Swedish Summary (1999)

Preface 1. ntroduction #. Si$ns (. &odality and )e*resentation .. /aradi$ms and Synta$ms 0. Synta$matic 'nalysis 2. /aradi$matic 'nalysis 3. -enotation4 "onnotation and &yth 5. )hetorical Tro*es !9. "odes 1%. &odes of 'ddress 11. +ncodin$,-ecodin$ 1#. 'rticulation 1(. nterte1tuality 1.. "riticisms of Semiotic 'nalysis 10. Stren$ths of Semiotic 'nalysis 12. -. .6. Semiotic 'nalysis

Glossary; References; Suggested Reading; Index; Semiotics Links; S4B Message Board; S4B Chatroom

Introduction
If you go into a ooksho! and ask them "here to find a ook on semiotics you are likely to meet "ith a lank look# $%en "orse& you might e asked to

define "hat semiotics is ' "hich "ould e a it tricky if you "ere looking for a eginner(s guide# It(s "orse still if you do kno" a it a out semiotics& ecause it can e hard to offer a sim!le definition "hich is of much use in the ooksho!# If you(%e e%er een in such a situation& you(ll !ro a ly agree that it(s "ise not to ask# Semiotics could e any"here# )he shortest definition is that it is the study of signs# But that doesn(t lea%e en*uirers much "iser# (+hat do you mean y a sign,( !eo!le usually ask next# )he kinds of signs that are likely to s!ring immediately to mind are those "hich "e routinely refer to as (signs( in e%eryday life& such as road signs& !u signs and star signs# If you "ere to agree "ith them that semiotics can include the study of all these and more& !eo!le "ill !ro a ly assume that semiotics is a out (%isual signs(# -ou "ould confirm their hunch if you said that signs can also e dra"ings& !aintings and !hotogra!hs& and y no" they(d e keen to direct you to the art and !hotogra!hy sections# But if you are thick'skinned and tell them that it also includes "ords& sounds and ( ody language( they may reasona ly "onder "hat all these things ha%e in common and ho" anyone could !ossi ly study such dis!arate !henomena# If you get this far they(%e !ro a ly already (read the signs( "hich suggest that you are either eccentric or insane and communication may ha%e ceased# .ssuming that you are not one of those annoying !eo!le "ho kee!s e%eryone "aiting "ith your a"k"ard *uestion& if you are searching for ooks on semiotics you could do "orse than y starting off in the linguistics section# t is... *ossible to concei7e of a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life. t would form *art of social *sycholo$y4 and hence of $eneral *sycholo$y. 8e shall call it semiology (from the Greek semeon4 9si$n9). t would in7esti$ate the nature of si$ns and the laws $o7ernin$ them. Since it does not yet e1ist4 one

cannot say for certain that it will e1ist. :ut it has a ri$ht to e1ist4 a *lace ready for it in ad7ance. ;in$uistics is only one branch of this $eneral science. The laws which semiolo$y will disco7er will be laws a**licable in lin$uistics4 and lin$uistics will thus be assi$ned to a clearly defined *lace in the field of human knowled$e. (Saussure 195(4 10<12= Saussure 193.4 12) )hus "rote the S"iss linguist /erdinand de Saussure 01234'15167& a founder not only of linguistics ut also of "hat is no" more usually referred to as semiotics 0in his Course in General Linguistics& 15187# 9ther than Saussure 0the usual a re%iation7& key figures in the early de%elo!ment of semiotics "ere the .merican !hiloso!her Charles Sanders Peirce 0sic& !ronounced (!urse(7 01265' 15147 and later Charles +illiam Morris 015:1'15457& "ho de%elo!ed a behaviourist semiotics# Leading modern semiotic theorists include Roland Barthes 01513'152:7& .lgirdas Greimas 01514'155;7& -uri Lotman 015;;'15567& Christian Met< 01561'15567& =m erto $co 0 156;7 and >ulia ?riste%a 0 15417# . num er of linguists other than Saussure ha%e "orked "ithin a semiotic frame"ork& such as Louis @Aelmsle% 01255'15887 and Roman >ako son 01258' 152;7# It is difficult to disentangle $uro!ean semiotics from structuralism in its origins; maAor structuralists include not only Saussure ut also Claude LB%i'Strauss 015:2'155:7 in anthro!ology 0"ho sa" his su Aect as a ranch of semiotics7 and >ac*ues Lacan 015:1'15217 in !sychoanalysis# Structuralism is an analytical method "hich has een em!loyed y many semioticians and "hich is ased on Saussure(s linguistic model# Structuralists seek to descri e the o%erall organi<ation of sign systems as (languages( ' as "ith LB%i'Strauss and myth& kinshi! rules and totemism& Lacan and the unconscious and Barthes and Greimas and the (grammar( of narrati%e# )hey engage in a search for

(dee! structures( underlying the (surface features( of !henomena# @o"e%er& contem!orary social semiotics has mo%ed eyond the structuralist concern "ith the internal relations of !arts "ithin a self'contained system& seeking to ex!lore the use of signs in s!ecific social situations# Modern semiotic theory is also sometimes allied "ith a Marxist a!!roach "hich stresses the role of ideology# Semiotics egan to ecome a maAor a!!roach to cultural studies in the late 158:s& !artly as a result of the "ork of Roland Barthes# )he translation into $nglish of his !o!ular essays in a collection entitled Mythologies 0Barthes 15347& follo"ed in the 154:s and 152:s y many of his other "ritings& greatly increased scholarly a"areness of this a!!roach# +riting in 1584& Barthes declared that (semiology aims to take in any system of signs& "hate%er their su stance and limits; images& gestures& musical sounds& o Aects& and the com!lex associations of all of these& "hich form the content of ritual& con%ention or !u lic entertainmentC these constitute& if not languages& at least systems of signification( 0Barthes 1584& 57# )he ado!tion of semiotics in Britain "as influenced y its !rominence in the "ork of the Centre for Contem!orary Cultural Studies 0CCCS7 at the =ni%ersity of Birmingham "hilst the centre "as under the direction of the neo'Marxist sociologist Stuart @all 0director 1585'457# .lthough semiotics may e less central no" "ithin cultural and media studies 0at least in its earlier& more structuralist form7& it remains essential for anyone in the field to understand it# +hat indi%idual scholars ha%e to assess& of course& is "hether and ho" semiotics may e useful in shedding light on any as!ect of their concerns# Dote that Saussure(s term& (semiology( is sometimes used to refer to the Saussurean tradition& "hilst (semiotics( sometimes refers to the Peircean tradition& ut that no"adays the term (semiotics( is more likely to e used as an um rella term to em race the "hole field 0DEth 155:& 147# Semiotics is not "idely institutionali<ed as an academic disci!line# It is a field of study in%ol%ing many different theoretical stances and methodological tools# 9ne of the roadest definitions

is that of =m erto $co& "ho states that (semiotics is concerned "ith e%erything that can e taken as a sign( 0$co 1548& 47# Semiotics in%ol%es the study not only of "hat "e refer to as (signs( in e%eryday s!eech& ut of anything "hich (stands for( something else# In a semiotic sense& signs take the form of "ords& images& sounds& gestures and o Aects# +hilst for the linguist Saussure& (semiology( "as (a science "hich studies the role of signs as !art of social life(& for the !hiloso!her Charles Peirce (semiotic( "as the (formal doctrine of signs( "hich "as closely related to Logic 0Peirce 1561'32& ;#;;47# /or him& (a sign### is something "hich stands to some ody for something in some res!ect or ca!acity( 0Peirce 1561'32& ;#;;27# @e declared that (e%ery thought is a sign( 0Peirce 1561'32& 1#362; cf# 3#;3:ff& 3#;26ff7# Contem!orary semioticians study signs not in isolation ut as !art of semiotic (sign systems( 0such as a medium or genre7# )hey study ho" meanings are madeC as such& eing concerned not only "ith communication ut also "ith the construction and maintenance of reality# Semiotics and that ranch of linguistics kno"n as semantics ha%e a common concern "ith the meaning of signs& ut >ohn Sturrock argues that "hereas semantics focuses on what "ords mean& semiotics is concerned "ith how signs mean 0Sturrock 1528& ;;7# /or C + Morris 0deri%ing this threefold classification from Peirce7& semiotics em raced semantics& along "ith the other traditional ranches of linguisticsC semantics> the relationshi* of si$ns to what they stand for= syntactics (or syntax)> the formal or structural relations between si$ns= pragmatics> the relation of si$ns to inter*reters (&orris 19(54 2<3). Semiotics is often em!loyed in the analysis of texts 0although it is far more than Aust a mode of textual analysis7# @ere it should !erha!s e noted that a (text( can exist in any medium and may e %er al& non'%er al& or oth& des!ite the logocentric ias of this distinction# )he term text usually refers to a message "hich has een recorded in some "ay 0e#g# "riting& audio' and %ideo'recording7 so that it is

!hysically inde!endent of its sender or recei%er# . text is an assem lage of signs 0such as "ords& images& sounds andFor gestures7 constructed 0and inter!reted7 "ith reference to the con%entions associated "ith a genre and in a !articular medium of communication# )he term (medium( is used in a %ariety of "ays y different theorists& and may include such road categories as s!eech and "riting or !rint and roadcasting or relate to s!ecific technical forms "ithin the mass media 0radio& tele%ision& ne"s!a!ers& maga<ines& ooks& !hotogra!hs& films and records7 or the media of interpersonal communication 0tele!hone& letter& fax& e'mail& %ideo' conferencing& com!uter' ased chat systems7# Some theorists classify media according to the (channels( in%ol%ed 0%isual& auditory& tactile and so on7 0DEth 1553& 1437# @uman ex!erience is inherently multisensory& and e%ery re!resentation of ex!erience is su Aect to the constraints and affordances of the medium in%ol%ed# $%ery medium is constrained y the channels "hich it utili<es# /or instance& e%en in the %ery flexi le medium of language ("ords fail us( in attem!ting to re!resent some ex!eriences& and "e ha%e no "ay at all of re!resenting smell or touch "ith con%entional media# Gifferent media and genres !ro%ide different frame"orks for re!resenting ex!erience& facilitating some forms of ex!ression and inhi iting others# )he differences et"een media lead $mile Ben%eniste to argue that the (first !rinci!le( of semiotic systems is that they are not (synonymous(C ("e are not a le to say Hthe same thingH( in systems ased on different units 0in Innis 1528& ;637 in contrast to @Aelmsle%& "ho asserted that (in !ractice& language is a semiotic into "hich all other semiotics may e translated( 0cited in Genosko 1554& 8;7# )he e%eryday use of a medium y someone "ho kno"s ho" to use it ty!ically !asses un*uestioned as un!ro lematic and (neutral(C this is hardly sur!rising since media e%ol%e as a means of accom!lishing !ur!oses in "hich they are usually intended to e incidental# .nd the more fre*uently and fluently a medium is used& the more (trans!arent( or (in%isi le( to its users it tends to ecome# /or most

routine !ur!oses& a"areness of a medium may ham!er its effecti%eness as a means to an end# Indeed& it is ty!ically "hen the medium ac*uires trans!arency that its !otential to fulfil its !rimary function is greatest# )he selecti%ity of any medium leads to its use ha%ing influences of "hich the user may not al"ays e conscious& and "hich may not ha%e een !art of the !ur!ose in using it# +e can e so familiar "ith the medium that "e are (anaestheti<ed( to the mediation it in%ol%esC "e (don(t kno" "hat "e(re missing(# Insofar as "e are num ed to the !rocesses in%ol%ed "e cannot e said to e exercising (choices( in its use# In this "ay the means "e use may modify our ends# .mongst the !henomena enhanced or reduced y media selecti%ity are the ends for "hich a medium "as used# In some cases& our (!ur!oses( may e su tly 0and !erha!s in%isi ly7& redefined y our use of a !articular medium# )his is the o!!osite of the !ragmatic and rationalistic stance& according to "hich the means are chosen to suit the user(s ends& and are entirely under the user(s control# .n a"areness of this !henomenon of transformation y media has often led media theorists to argue deterministically that our technical means and systems al"ays and ine%ita ly ecome (ends in themsel%es( 0a common inter!retation of Marshall McLuhan(s famous a!horism& (the medium is the message(7& and has e%en led some to !resent media as "holly autonomous entities "ith (!ur!oses( 0as o!!osed to functions7 of their o"n# @o"e%er& one need not ado!t such extreme stances in ackno"ledging the transformations in%ol%ed in !rocesses of mediation# +hen "e use a medium for any !ur!ose& its use ecomes !art of that !ur!ose# )ra%elling is an una%oida le !art of getting some"here; it may e%en ecome a !rimary goal# )ra%elling y one !articular method of trans!ort rather than another is !art of the ex!erience# So too "ith "riting rather than s!eaking& or using a "ord !rocessor rather than a !en# In using any medium& to some extent "e ser%e its (!ur!oses( as "ell as it ser%ing ours# +hen "e engage "ith media "e oth act and are acted u!on& use and are used# +here a

medium has a %ariety of functions it may e im!ossi le to choose to use it for only one of these functions in isolation# )he making of meanings "ith such media must in%ol%e some degree of com!romise# Com!lete identity et"een any s!ecific !ur!ose and the functionality of a medium is likely to e rare& although the degree of match may on most occasions e acce!ted as ade*uate# I am reminded here of an o ser%ation y the anthro!ologist Claude LB%i'Strauss that in the case of "hat he called bricolage& the !rocess of creating something is not a matter of the calculated choice and use of "hate%er materials are technically est' ada!ted to a clearly !redetermined !ur!ose& ut rather it in%ol%es a (dialogue "ith the materials and means of execution( 0LB%i'Strauss 1544& ;57# In such a dialogue& the materials "hich are ready'to'hand may 0as "e say7 (suggest( ada!ti%e courses of action& and the initial aim may e modified# Conse*uently& such acts of creation are not !urely instrumentalC the bricoleur (Hs!eaksH not only "ith things### ut also through the medium of things( 0ibid.& ;17C the use of the medium can e ex!ressi%e# )he context of LB%i'Strauss(s !oint "as a discussion of (mythical thought(& ut I "ould argue that ricolage can e in%ol%ed in the use of any medium& for any !ur!ose# )he act of "riting& for instance& may e sha!ed not only y the "riter(s conscious !ur!oses ut also y features of the media in%ol%ed ' such as the kind of language and "riting tools used ' as "ell as y the social and !sychological !rocesses of mediation in%ol%ed# .ny (resistance( offered y the "riter(s materials can e an intrinsic !art of the !rocess of "riting# @o"e%er& not e%ery "riter acts or feels like a ricoleur# Indi%iduals differ strikingly in their res!onses to the notion of media transformation# )hey range from those "ho insist that they are in total control of the media "hich they (use( to those "ho ex!erience a !rofound sense of eing sha!ed y the media "hich (use( them 0Chandler 15537# Dorman /airclough comments on the im!ortance of the differences et"een the %arious mass media in the channels and technologies they dra" u!on#

The *ress uses a 7isual channel4 its lan$ua$e is written4 and it draws u*on technolo$ies of *hoto$ra*hic re*roduction4 $ra*hic desi$n4 and *rintin$. )adio4 by contrast4 uses an oral channel and s*oken lan$ua$e and relies on technolo$ies of sound recordin$ and broadcastin$4 whilst tele7ision combines technolo$ies of sound< and ima$e< recordin$ and broadcastin$... )hese differences in channel and technology ha%e significant "ider im!lications in terms of the meaning !otential of the different media# /or instance& !rint is in an im!ortant sense less !ersonal than radio or tele%ision# Radio egins to allo" indi%iduality and !ersonality to e foregrounded through transmitting indi%idual *ualities of %oice# )ele%ision takes the !rocess much further y making !eo!le %isually a%aila le& and not in the fro<en modality of ne"s!a!er !hotogra!hs& ut in mo%ement and action# 0/airclough 1553& 62'57 +hilst technological determinists em!hasi<e that semiotic ecologies are influenced y the fundamental design features of different media& it is im!ortant to recogni<e the im!ortance of socio' cultural and historical factors in sha!ing ho" different media are used and their 0e%er'shifting7 status "ithin !articular cultural contexts# /or instance& many contem!orary cultural theorists ha%e remarked on the gro"th of the im!ortance of %isual media com!ared "ith linguistic media in contem!orary society and the associated shifts in the communicati%e functions of such media# )hinking in (ecological( terms a out the interaction of different semiotic structures and languages led the Russian cultural semiotician -uri Lotman to coin the term (semios!here( to refer to (the "hole semiotic s!ace of the culture in *uestion( 0Lotman 155:& 1;4'1;37# )he conce!t is related to ecologists( references to (the ios!here( and !erha!s to cultural theorists( references to the !u lic and !ri%ate s!heres& ut most reminiscent of )eilhard de Chardin(s notion 0dating ack to 15457 of the (noos!here( ' the domain in "hich mind is exercised# +hilst Lotman referred to such semios!heres as go%erning the functioning of languages "ithin cultures& >ohn @artley comments

that (there is more than one le%el at "hich one might identify a semios!here ' at the le%el of a single national or linguistic culture& for instance& or of a larger unity such as Hthe +estH& right u! to Hthe s!eciesH(; "e might similarly characteri<e the semios!here of a !articular historical !eriod 0@artley 1558& 1:87# )his conce!tion of a semios!here may make semioticians seem territorially im!erialistic to their critics& ut it offers a more unified and dynamic %ision of semiosis than the study of a s!ecific medium as if each existed in a %acuum# )here are& of course& other a!!roaches to textual analysis a!art from semiotics ' nota ly rhetorical analysis& discourse analysis and (content analysis(# In the field of media and communication studies content analysis is a !rominent ri%al to semiotics as a method of textual analysis# +hereas semiotics is no" closely associated "ith cultural studies& content analysis is "ell'esta lished "ithin the mainstream tradition of social science research# +hilst content analysis in%ol%es a *uantitati%e a!!roach to the analysis of the manifest (content( of media texts& semiotics seeks to analyse media texts as structured "holes and in%estigates latent& connotati%e meanings# Semiotics is rarely *uantitati%e& and often in%ol%es a reAection of such a!!roaches# >ust ecause an item occurs fre*uently in a text does not make it significant# )he structuralist semiotician is more concerned "ith the relation of elements to each other# . social semiotician "ould also em!hasi<e the im!ortance of the significance "hich readers attach to the signs "ithin a text# +hereas content analysis focuses on ex!licit content and tends to suggest that this re!resents a single& fixed meaning& semiotic studies focus on the system of rules go%erning the (discourse( in%ol%ed in media texts& stressing the role of semiotic context in sha!ing meaning# @o"e%er& some researchers ha%e com ined semiotic analysis and content analysis 0e#g# Glasgo" =ni%ersity Media Grou! 152:; Leiss et al. 155:; McIuarrie J Mick 155;7# Some commentators ado!t C + Morris(s definition of semiotics 0in the s!irit of Saussure7 as (the science of signs( 0Morris 1562& 1';7# )he term (science( is misleading# .s yet semiotics in%ol%es no "idely'

agreed theoretical assum!tions& models or em!irical methodologies# Semiotics has tended to e largely theoretical& many of its theorists seeking to esta lish its sco!e and general !rinci!les# Peirce and Saussure& for instance& "ere oth concerned "ith the fundamental definition of the sign# Peirce de%elo!ed ela orate logical taxonomies of ty!es of signs# Su se*uent semioticians ha%e sought to identify and categori<e the codes or con%entions according to "hich signs are organi<ed# Clearly there is a need to esta lish a firm theoretical foundation for a su Aect "hich is currently characteri<ed y a host of com!eting theoretical assum!tions# .s for methodologies& Saussure(s theories constituted a starting !oint for the de%elo!ment of %arious structuralist methodologies for analysing texts and social !ractices# )hese ha%e een %ery "idely em!loyed in the analysis of a host of cultural !henomena# @o"e%er& such methods are not uni%ersally acce!tedC socially'oriented theorists ha%e critici<ed their exclusi%e focus on structure& and no alternati%e methodologies ha%e as yet een "idely ado!ted# Some semiotic research is em!irically'oriented& a!!lying and testing semiotic !rinci!les# Bo @odge and Ga%id )ri!! em!loyed em!irical methods in their classic study of Children and Television 0@odge J )ri!! 15287# But there is at !resent little sense of semiotics as a unified enter!rise uilding on cumulati%e research findings# Semiotics re!resents a range of studies in art& literature& anthro!ology and the mass media rather than an inde!endent academic disci!line# )hose in%ol%ed in semiotics include linguists& !hiloso!hers& !sychologists& sociologists& anthro!ologists& literary& aesthetic and media theorists& !sychoanalysts and educationalists# Beyond the most asic definition& there is considera le %ariation amongst leading semioticians as to "hat semiotics in%ol%es# It is not only concerned "ith 0intentional7 communication ut also "ith our ascri!tion of significance to anything in the "orld# Semiotics has changed o%er time& since semioticians ha%e sought to remedy "eaknesses in early semiotic a!!roaches# $%en "ith the most asic semiotic terms there are multi!le definitions# Conse*uently& anyone attem!ting semiotic analysis

"ould e "ise to make clear "hich definitions are eing a!!lied and& if a !articular semiotician(s a!!roach is eing ado!ted& "hat its source is# )here are t"o di%ergent traditions in semiotics stemming res!ecti%ely from Saussure and Peirce# )he "ork of Louis @Aelmsle%& Roland Barthes& Claude LB%i' Strauss& >ulia ?riste%a& Christian Met< and >ean Baudrillard 0 15;57 follo"s in the (semiological( tradition of Saussure "hilst that of Charles + Morris& I%or . Richards 01256'15457& Charles ? 9gden 01525'15347 and )homas Se eok 0 15;:7 is in the (semiotic( tradition of Peirce# )he leading semiotician ridging these t"o traditions is the cele rated Italian author =m erto $co& "ho as the author of the estseller The Name of the Rose 0no%el 152:& film 15287 is !ro a ly the only semiotician "hose film rights are of any %alue 0$co 152:7# Saussure argued that (nothing is more a!!ro!riate than the study of languages to ring out the nature of the semiological !ro lem( 0Saussure 1526& 18; Saussure 1544& 187# Semiotics dra"s hea%ily on linguistic conce!ts& !artly ecause of the influence of Saussure and ecause linguistics is a more esta lished disci!line than the study of other sign systems# Structuralists ado!ted language as their model in ex!loring a much "ider range of social !henomenaC LB%i'Strauss for myth& kinshi! rules and totemism; Lacan for the unconscious; Barthes and Greimas for the (grammar( of narrati%e# >ulia ?riste%a declared that ("hat semiotics has disco%ered### is that the law go%erning or& if one !refers& the ma or constraint affecting any social !ractice lies in the fact that it signifies; i#e# that it is articulated li!e a language( 0cited in @a"kes 1544& 1;37# Saussure referred to language 0his model eing speech7 as (the most im!ortant( of all of the systems of signs 0Saussure 1526& 13; Saussure 1544& 187# Language is almost un%aria ly regarded as the most !o"erful communication system y far# /or instance& Mar%in @arris o ser%es that (human languages are uni*ue among communication systems in !ossessing semantic universality### . communication system that has semantic uni%ersality can con%ey information a out all as!ects& domains& !ro!erties& !laces& or e%ents in the !ast& !resent or future& "hether actual

or !ossi le& real or imaginary( 0cited in +ilden 1524& 1627# Perha!s language is indeed fundamentalC $mile Ben%eniste o ser%ed that (language is the inter!reting system of all other systems& linguistic and non'linguistic( 0in Innis 1528& ;657& "hilst Claude LB%i'Strauss noted that (language is the semiotic system par excellence; it cannot ut signify& and exists only through signification( 0LB%i'Strauss 154;& 427# Saussure sa" linguistics as a ranch of (semiology(C ;in$uistics is only one branch of this $eneral science ?of semiolo$y@. The laws which semiolo$y will disco7er will be laws a**licable in lin$uistics... 's far as we are concerned... the lin$uistic *roblem is first and foremost semiolo$ical... f one wishes to disco7er the true nature of lan$ua$e systems4 one must first consider what they ha7e in common with all other systems of the same kind... n this way4 li$ht will be thrown not only u*on the lin$uistic *roblem. :y considerin$ rites4 customs etc. as si$ns4 it will be *ossible4 we belie7e4 to see them in a new *ers*ecti7e. The need will be felt to consider them as semiolo$ical *henomena and to e1*lain them in terms of the laws of semiolo$y. (Saussure 195(4 12<13= Saussure 193.4 12<13) +hilst Roland Barthes declared that (!erha!s "e must in%ert Saussure(s formulation and assert that semiology is a ranch of linguistics(& others ha%e acce!ted Saussure(s location of linguistics "ithin semiotics 0Barthes 1523& xi7# 9ther than himself& >ean'Marie /loch instances @Aelmsle% and Greimas 0/loch ;:::& 567# @o"e%er& e%en if "e theoretically locate linguistics "ithin semiotics it is difficult to a%oid ado!ting the linguistic model in ex!loring other sign systems# Semioticians commonly refer to films& tele%ision and radio !rogrammes& ad%ertising !osters and so on as (texts(& and to (reading tele%ision( 0/iske and @artley 15427# Media such as tele%ision and film are regarded y some semioticians as eing in some res!ects like (languages(# )he issue tends to re%ol%e around "hether film is closer to "hat "e treat as (reality( in the e%eryday "orld of our o"n ex!erience or "hether it has more in common "ith a sym olic system like "riting# Some refer to the (grammar( of media other than language# /or >ames Monaco& (film

has no grammar(& and he offers a useful criti*ue of gli analogies et"een film techni*ues and the grammar of natural language 0ibid.& 1;57# )here is a danger of trying to force all media into a linguistic frame"ork# +ith regard to !hotogra!hy 0though one might say the same for film and tele%ision7& Kictor Burgin insists thatC ()here is no (language( of !hotogra!hy& no single signifying system 0as o!!osed to technical a!!aratus7 u!on "hich all !hotogra!hs de!end 0in the sense in "hich all texts in $nglish de!end u!on the $nglish language7; there is& rather& a heterogeneous com!lex of codes u!on "hich !hotogra!hy may dra"( 0Burgin 152; & 1467# +e "ill shortly examine Saussure(s model of the sign& ut efore doing so it is im!ortant to understand something a out the general frame"ork "ithin "hich he situated it# Saussure made "hat is no" a famous distinction et"een langue 0language7 and parole 0s!eech7# Langue refers to the system of rules and con%entions "hich is inde!endent of& and !re'exists& indi%idual users; parole refers to its use in !articular instances# .!!lying the notion to semiotic systems in general rather than sim!ly to language& the distinction is one et"een et"een code and message& structure and event or system and usage 0in s!ecific texts or contexts7# .ccording to the Saussurean distinction& in a semiotic system such as cinema& (any s!ecific film is the s!eech of that underlying system of cinema language( 0Langhol< Leymore 1543& 67# Saussure focused on langue rather than parole# )o the traditional& Saussurean semiotician& "hat matters most are the underlying structures and rules of a semiotic system as a "hole rather than s!ecific !erformances or !ractices "hich are merely instances of its use# Saussure(s a!!roach "as to study the system (synchronically( if it "ere fro<en in time 0like a !hotogra!h7 ' rather than (diachronically( ' in terms of its e%olution o%er time 0like a film7# Structuralist cultural theorists su se*uently ado!ted this Saussurean !riority& focusing on the functions of social and cultural !henomena "ithin semiotic systems# )heorists differ o%er "hether the system !recedes and determines usage 0structural determinism7 or "hether usage !recedes and determines the system 0social

determinism7 0although note that most structuralists argue that the system constrains rather than com!letely determines usage7# )he structuralist dichotomy et"een usage and system has een critici<ed for its rigidity& s!litting !rocess from !roduct& su Aect from structure 0Co"ard J $llis 1544& 4& 147# )he !rioriti<ation of structure o%er usage fails to account for changes in structure# Marxist theorists ha%e een !articularly critical of this# In the late 15;:s& Kalentin Kolosino% 01224F3'15687 and Mikhail Bakhtin 01253'15437 critici<ed Saussure(s synchronic a!!roach and his em!hasis on internal relations "ithin the system of language 0Koloshino% 1546; Morris 15547# Kolosino% re%ersed the Saussurean !riority of langue o%er paroleC ()he sign is !art of organi<ed social intercourse and cannot exist& as such& outside it& re%erting to a mere !hysical artifact( 0Koloshino% 1546& ;17# )he meaning of a sign is not in its relationshi! to other signs "ithin the language system ut rather in the social context of its use# Saussure "as critici<ed for ignoring historicity 0ibid.& 817# )he Prague school linguists Roman >ako son and -uri )ynyano% declared in 15;4 that (!ure synchronism no" !ro%es to e an illusion(& adding that (e%ery synchronic system has its !ast and its future as inse!ara le structural elements of the system( 0cited in Koloshino% 1546& 1887# +riting in 15;5& Kolosino% o ser%ed that (there is no real moment in time "hen a synchronic system of language could e constructed### . synchronic system may e said to exist only from the !oint of %ie" of the su Aecti%e consciousness of an indi%idual s!eaker elonging to some !articular language grou! at some !articular moment of historical time( 0Koloshino% 1546& 887# +hilst the /rench structuralist Claude LB%i'Strauss a!!lied a synchronic a!!roach in the domain of anthro!ology& most contem!orary semioticians ha%e sought to re!rioriti<e historicity and social context# Language is seldom treated as a static& closed and sta le system "hich is inherited from !receding generations ut as constantly changing# )he sign& as Koloshino% !ut it& is (an arena of the class struggle( 0ibid.& ;67# Seeking to esta lish a "holeheartedly (social semiotics(& Ro ert @odge

and Gunther ?ress declare that (the social dimensions of semiotic systems are so intrinsic to their nature and function that the systems cannot e studied in isolation( 0@odge J ?ress 1522& 17# +hilst Saussure may e hailed as a founder of semiotics& semiotics has ecome increasingly less Saussurean# )eresa de Lauretis descri es the mo%ement a"ay from structuralist semiotics "hich egan in the 154:sC n the last decade or so4 semiotics has under$one a shift of its theoretical $ears> a shift away from the classification of si$n systems < their basic units4 their le7els of structural or$aniAation < and towards the e1*loration of the modes of *roduction of si$ns and meanin$s4 the ways in which systems and codes are used4 transformed or trans$ressed in social *ractice. 8hile formerly the em*hasis was on studyin$ si$n systems (lan$ua$e4 literature4 cinema4 architecture4 music4 etc.)4 concei7ed of as mechanisms that $enerate messa$es4 what is now bein$ e1amined is the work *erformed throu$h them. t is this work or acti7ity which constitutes and,or transforms the codes4 at the same time as it constitutes and transforms the indi7iduals usin$ the codes4 *erformin$ the work= the indi7iduals who are4 therefore4 the subBects of semiosis. (Semiosis(& a term orro"ed from Charles Sanders Peirce& is ex!anded y $co to designate the !rocess y "hich a culture !roduces signs andFor attri utes meaning to signs# .lthough for $co meaning !roduction or semiosis is a social acti%ity& he allo"s that su Aecti%e factors are in%ol%ed in each indi%idual act of semiosis# )he notion then might e !ertinent to the t"o main em!hases of current& or !oststructuralist& semiotic theory# 9ne is a semiotics focused on the su Aecti%e as!ects of signification and strongly influenced y Lacanian !sychoanalysis& "here meaning is construed as a su Aect'effect 0the su Aect eing an effect of the signifier7# )he other is a semiotics concerned to stress the social as!ect of signification& its !ractical& aesthetic& or ideological use in inter!ersonal communication; there& meaning is construed

as semantic %alue !roduced through culturally shared codes# 0de Lauretis 1524& 1847 )his text outlines some of the key conce!ts in semiotics& together "ith rele%ant criti*ues& eginning "ith the most fundamental conce!t of the sign itself# I ho!e it "ill !ro%e to e a useful com!anion to the reader in finding their o"n !ath through the su Aect# But efore launching on an ex!loration of this intriguing ut demanding su Aect let us consider "hy "e should otherC "hy should "e study semiotics, )his is a !ressing *uestion in !art ecause the "ritings of semioticians ha%e a re!utation for eing dense "ith AargonC >ustin Le"is notes that (its ad%ocates ha%e "ritten in a style that ranges from the o scure to the incom!rehensi le( 0Le"is 1551& ;37; another critic "ittily remarked that (semiotics tells us things "e already kno" in a language "e "ill ne%er understand( 0Paddy +hannel& cited in Seiter 155;& 17# )he semiotic esta lishment is a %ery exclusi%e clu ut& as Ga%id Sless remarks& (semiotics is far too im!ortant an enter!rise to e left to semioticians( 0Sless 1528& 17# Semiotics is im!ortant ecause it can hel! us not to take (reality( for granted as something ha%ing a !urely o Aecti%e existence "hich is inde!endent of human inter!retation# It teaches us that reality is a system of signs# Studying semiotics can assist us to ecome more a"are of reality as a construction and of the roles !layed y oursel%es and others in constructing it# It can hel! us to reali<e that information or meaning is not (contained( in the "orld or in ooks& com!uters or audio'%isual media# Meaning is not (transmitted( to us ' "e acti%ely create it according to a com!lex inter!lay of codes or con%entions of "hich "e are normally una"are# Becoming a"are of such codes is oth inherently fascinating and intellectually em!o"ering# +e learn from semiotics that "e li%e in a "orld of signs and "e ha%e no "ay of understanding anything exce!t through signs and the codes into "hich they are organi<ed# )hrough the study of semiotics "e ecome a"are that these signs and codes are normally trans!arent and disguise our task in (reading( them# Li%ing in a "orld of increasingly %isual signs& "e need to learn that e%en the most (realistic(

signs are not "hat they a!!ear to e# By making more ex!licit the codes y "hich signs are inter!reted "e may !erform the %alua le semiotic function of (denaturali<ing( signs# In defining realities signs ser%e ideological functions# Geconstructing and contesting the realities of signs can re%eal whose realities are !ri%ileged and "hose are su!!ressed# )he study of signs is the study of the construction and maintenance of reality# )o decline such a study is to lea%e to others the control of the "orld of meanings "hich "e inha it#

Signs
+e seem as a s!ecies to e dri%en y a desire to make meaningsC a o%e all& "e are surely "omo significans ' meaning'makers# Gistincti%ely& "e make meanings through our creation and inter!retation of (signs(# Indeed& according to Peirce& ("e think only in signs( 0Peirce 1561'32& ;#6:;7# Signs take the form of "ords& images& sounds& odours& fla%ours& acts or o Aects& ut such things ha%e no intrinsic meaning and ecome signs only "hen "e in%est them "ith meaning# (Dothing is a sign unless it is inter!reted as a sign(& declares Peirce 0Peirce 1561'32& ;#14;7# .nything can e a sign as long as someone inter!rets it as (signifying( something ' referring to or standing for something other than itself# +e inter!ret things as signs largely unconsciously y relating them to familiar systems of con%entions# It is this meaningful use of signs "hich is at the heart of the concerns of semiotics# )he t"o dominant models of "hat constitutes a sign are those of the linguist /erdinand de Saussure and the !hiloso!her Charles Sanders Peirce# )hese "ill e discussed in turn# Saussure offered a (dyadic( or t"o'!art model of the sign# @e defined a sign as eing com!osed ofC a 9si$nifier9 (signifiant) < the form which the si$n takes= and

the 9si$nified9 (signifi) < the concept it re*resents.

)he sign is the "hole that results from the association of the signifier "ith the signified 0Saussure 1526& 84; Saussure 1544& 847# )he relationshi! et"een the signifier and the signified is referred to as (signification(& and this is re!resented in the Saussurean diagram y the arro"s# )he hori<ontal line marking the t"o elements of the sign is referred to as (the ar(# If "e take a linguistic exam!le& the "ord (9!en( 0"hen it is in%ested "ith meaning y someone "ho encounters it on a sho! door"ay7 is a sign consisting ofC a signifier> the word open= a signified concept> that the sho* is o*en for business. . sign must ha%e oth a signifier and a signified# -ou cannot ha%e a totally meaningless signifier or a com!letely formless signified 0Saussure 1526& 1:1; Saussure 1544& 1:;'1:67# . sign is a recogni<a le com ination of a signifier "ith a !articular signified# )he same signifier 0the "ord (o!en(7 could stand for a different signified 0and thus e a different sign7 if it "ere on a !ush' utton inside a lift 0(!ush to o!en door(7# Similarly& many signifiers could stand for the conce!t (o!en( 0for instance& on to! of a !acking carton& a small outline of a ox "ith an o!en fla! for (o!en this end(7 ' again& "ith each uni*ue !airing constituting a different sign# Do"adays& "hilst the asic (Saussurean( model is commonly ado!ted& it tends to e a more materialistic model than that of Saussure himself# )he signifier is no" commonly inter!reted as the material #or physical$ form of the sign ' it is something "hich can e seen& heard& touched& smelt or tasted# /or Saussure& oth the signifier and the signified "ere !urely (!sychological( 0Saussure 1526& 1;& 14'13& 88; Saussure 1544& 1;& 13& 83'887# Both "ere form rather than substanceC

' lin$uistic si$n is not a link between a thin$ and a name4 but between a conce*t and a sound *attern. The sound *attern is not actually a sound= for a sound is somethin$ *hysical. ' sound *attern is the hearer9s *sycholo$ical im*ression of a sound4 as $i7en to him by the e7idence of his senses. This sound *attern may be called a 9material9 element only in that it is the re*resentation of our sensory im*ressions. The sound *attern may thus be distin$uished from the other element associated with it in a lin$uistic si$n. This other element is $enerally of a more abstract kind> the conce*t. (Saussure 195(4 22= Saussure 193.4 22) Saussure "as focusing on the linguistic sign 0such as a "ord7 and he (!honocentrically( !ri%ileged the spo!en word& referring s!ecifically to the image acousti%ue 0(sound'image( or (sound !attern(7& seeing "riting as a se!arate& secondary& de!endent ut com!ara le sign system 0Saussure 1526& 13& ;4';3& 114; Saussure 1544& 13& 18& ;6';4& 1157# +ithin the 0(se!arate(7 system of "ritten signs& a signifier such as the "ritten letter (t( signified a sound in the !rimary sign system of language 0and thus a "ritten "ord "ould also signify a sound rather than a conce!t7# )hus for Saussure& "riting relates to s!eech as signifier to signified# Most su se*uent theorists "ho ha%e ado!ted Saussure(s model are content to refer to the form of linguistic signs as either s!oken or "ritten# +e "ill return later to the issue of the !ost'Saussurean (remateriali<ation( of the sign# .s for the signified& most commentators "ho ado!t Saussure(s model still treat this as a mental construct& although they often note that it may ne%ertheless refer indirectly to things in the "orld# Saussure(s original model of the sign ( rackets the referent(C excluding reference to o Aects existing in the "orld# @is signified is not to e identified directly "ith a referent ut is a concept in the mind ' not a thing ut the notion of a thing# Some !eo!le may "onder "hy Saussure(s model of the sign refers only to a conce!t and not to a thing# .n o ser%ation from the !hiloso!her Susanne Langer 0"ho "as not referring to Saussure(s theories7 may e useful here# Dote that like most contem!orary commentators&

Langer uses the term (sym ol( to refer to the linguistic sign 0a term "hich Saussure himself a%oided7C (Sym ols are not !roxy for their o Aects ut are vehicles for the conception of ob ects### In talking about things "e ha%e conce!tions of them& not the things themsel%es; and it is the conceptions& not the things& that symbols directly mean# Beha%iour to"ards conce!tions is "hat "ords normally e%oke; this is the ty!ical !rocess of thinking(# She adds that (If I say HDa!oleonH& you do not o" to the con*ueror of $uro!e as though I had introduced him& ut merely think of him( 0Langer 1531& 817# )hus& for Saussure the linguistic sign is "holly immaterial ' although he disliked referring to it as (a stract( 0Saussure 1526& 13; Saussure 1544& 137# )he immateriality of the Saussurean sign is a feature "hich tends to e neglected in many !o!ular commentaries# If the notion seems strange& "e need to remind oursel%es that "ords ha%e no %alue in themsel%es ' that is their %alue# Saussure noted that it is not the metal in a coin that fixes its %alue 0Saussure 1526& 114; Saussure 1544& 1127# Se%eral reasons could e offered for this# /or instance& if linguistic signs dre" attention to their materiality this "ould hinder their communicati%e trans!arency 0Langer 1531& 467# /urthermore& eing immaterial& language is an extraordinarily economical medium and "ords are al"ays ready'to'hand# De%ertheless& a !rinci!led argument can e made for the re%aluation of the materiality of the sign& as "e shall see in due course# Saussure noted that his choice of the terms signifier and signified hel!ed to indicate (the distinction "hich se!arates each from the other( 0Saussure 1526& 84; Saussure 1544& 847# Ges!ite this& and the hori<ontal ar in his diagram of the sign& Saussure stressed that sound and thought 0or the signifier and the signified7 "ere as inse!ara le as the t"o sides of a !iece of !a!er 0Saussure 1526& 111; Saussure 1544& 1167# )hey "ere (intimately linked( in the mind ( y an associati%e link( ' (each triggers the other( 0Saussure 1526& 88; Saussure 1544& 887# Saussure !resented these elements as "holly interde!endent& neither !re'existing the other 0Sil%erman 1526& 1:67# +ithin the context of s!oken language& a sign could not

consist of sound "ithout sense or of sense "ithout sound# @e used the t"o arro"s in the diagram to suggest their interaction# )he ar and the o!!osition ne%ertheless suggests that the signifier and the signified can e distinguished for analytical !ur!oses# Poststructuralist theorists critici<e the clear distinction "hich the Saussurean ar seems to suggest et"een the signifier and the signified; they seek to lur or erase it in order to reconfigure the sign or structural relations# Some theorists ha%e argued that (the signifier is al"ays se!arated from the signified### and has a real autonomy( 0Lechte 1554& 827& a !oint to "hich "e "ill return in discussing the ar itrariness of the sign# Commonsense tends to insist that the signified takes !recedence o%er& and !re'exists& the signifierC (look after the sense(& *ui!!ed Le"is Carroll& (and the sounds "ill take care of themsel%es( 0'lice(s 'dventures in )onderland& cha!ter 57# @o"e%er& in dramatic contrast& !ost'Saussurean theorists ha%e seen the model as im!licitly granting !rimacy to the signifier& thus re%ersing the commonsensical !osition# Louis @Aelmsle% used the terms (ex!ression( and (content( to refer to the signifier and signified res!ecti%ely 0@Aelmsle% 1581& 44ff7# )he distinction et"een signifier and signified has sometimes een e*uated to the familiar dualism of (form and content(# +ithin such a frame"ork the signifier is seen as the form of the sign and the signified as the content# @o"e%er& the meta!hor of form as a (container( is !ro lematic& tending to su!!ort the e*uation of content "ith meaning& im!lying that meaning can e (extracted( "ithout an acti%e !rocess of inter!retation and that form is not in itself meaningful 0Chandler 1553 1:4'87# Saussure argued that signs only make sense as !art of a formal& generali<ed and a stract system# @is conce!tion of meaning "as !urely structural and relational rather than referentialC !rimacy is gi%en to relationshi!s rather than to things 0the meaning of signs "as seen as lying in their systematic relation to each other rather than deri%ing from any inherent features of signifiers or any reference to material things7# Saussure did not define signs in terms of

some (essential( or intrinsic nature# /or Saussure& signs refer !rimarily to each other# +ithin the language system& (e%erything de!ends on relations( 0Saussure 1526& 1;1; Saussure 1544& 1;;7# Do sign makes sense on its o"n ut only in relation to other signs# Both signifier and signified are !urely relational entities 0Saussure 1526& 112; Saussure 1544& 1;:7# )his notion can e hard to understand since "e may feel that an indi%idual "ord such as (tree( does ha%e some meaning for us& ut its meaning de!ends on its context in relation to the other "ords "ith "hich it is used# )ogether "ith the (%ertical( alignment of signifier and signified within each indi%idual sign 0suggesting t"o structural (le%els(7& the em!hasis on the relationshi! between signs defines "hat are in effect t"o !lanes ' that of the signifier and the signifier# Later& Louis @Aelmsle% referred to the !lanes of (ex!ression( and (content( 0@Aelmsle% 1581& 8:7# Saussure himself referred to sound and thought as t"o distinct ut correlated !lanes# (+e can en%isage### the language### as a series of adAoining su di%isions simultaneously im!rinted oth on the !lane of %ague& amor!hous thought 0.7& and on the e*ually featureless !lane of sound 0B7( 0Saussure 1526& 11:' 111; Saussure 1544& 11;7# )he ar itrary di%ision of the t"o continua into signs is suggested y the dotted lines "hilst the "a%y 0rather than !arallel7 edges of the t"o (amor!hous( masses suggest the lack of any (natural( fit et"een them# )he gulf and lack of fit et"een the t"o !lanes highlights their relati%e autonomy# +hilst Saussure is careful not to refer directly to (reality(& /redric >ameson reads into this feature of Saussure(s system that (it is not so much the indi%idual "ord or sentence that Hstands forH or HreflectsH the indi%idual o Aect or e%ent in the real "orld& ut rather that the entire system of signs& the entire field of the langue& lies !arallel to reality itself; that it is the totality of systematic language& in other "ords& "hich is analogous to "hate%er organi<ed structures exist in the "orld of reality& and that our understanding !roceeds from one "hole or Gestalt to the other& rather than on a one'to'one asis( 0>ameson 154;& 6;'667#

+hat Saussure refers to as the (%alue( of a sign de!ends on its relations "ith other signs "ithin the system ' a sign has no (a solute( %alue inde!endent of this context 0Saussure 1526& 2:; Saussure 1544& 2:7# Saussure uses an analogy "ith the game of chess& noting that the %alue of each !iece de!ends on its !osition on the chess oard 0Saussure 1526& 22; Saussure 1544& 227# )he sign is more than the sum of its !arts# +hilst signification ' "hat is signified ' clearly de!ends on the relationshi! et"een the t"o !arts of the sign& the value of a sign is determined y the relationshi!s et"een the sign and other signs "ithin the system as a "hole 0Saussure 1526& 11;'116; Saussure 1544& 1147# The notion of 7alue... shows us that it is a $reat mistake to consider a si$n as nothin$ more than the combination of a certain sound and a certain conce*t. To think of a si$n as nothin$ more would be to isolate it from the system to which it belon$s. t would be to su**ose that a start could be made with indi7idual si$ns4 and a system constructed by *uttin$ them to$ether. On the contrary4 the system as a united whole is the startin$ *oint4 from which it becomes *ossible4 by a *rocess of analysis4 to identify its constituent elements. (Saussure 195(4 11#= Saussure 193.4 11() .s an exam!le of the distinction et"een signification and %alue& Saussure notes that ()he /rench "ord mouton may ha%e the same meaning as the $nglish "ord sheep; ut it does not ha%e the same %alue# )here are %arious reasons for this& ut in !articular the fact that the $nglish "ord for the meat of this animal& as !re!ared and ser%ed for a meal& is not sheep ut mutton# )he difference in %alue et"een sheep and mouton hinges on the fact that in $nglish there is also another "ord mutton for the meat& "hereas mouton in /rench co%ers oth( 0Saussure 1526& 114; Saussure 1544& 113'1187#

Saussure(s relational conce!tion of meaning "as s!ecifically differentialC he em!hasi<ed the differences et"een signs# Language for him "as a system of functional differences and o!!ositions# (In a language& as in e%ery other semiological system& "hat distinguishes a sign is "hat constitutes it( 0Saussure 1526& 115; Saussure 1544& 1;17# .s >ohn Sturrock !oints out& (a one'term language is an im!ossi ility ecause its single term could e a!!lied to e%erything and differentiate nothing; it re*uires at least one other term to gi%e it definition( 0Sturrock 1545& 1:7# .d%ertising furnishes a good exam!le of this notion& since "hat matters in (!ositioning( a !roduct is not the relationshi! of ad%ertising signifiers to real'"orld referents& ut the differentiation of each sign from the others to "hich it is related# Saussure(s conce!t of the relational identity of signs is at the heart of structuralist theory# Structuralist analysis focuses on the structural relations "hich are functional in the signifying system at a !articular moment in history# (Relations are im!ortant for "hat they can ex!lainC meaningful contrasts and !ermitted or for idden com inations( 0Culler 1543& 147# Saussure em!hasi<ed in !articular negative& o!!ositional differences et"een signs& and the key relationshi!s in structuralist analysis are inary o!!ositions 0such as nature*culture& life*death7# Saussure argued that (conce!ts### are defined not !ositi%ely& in terms of their content& ut negatively y contrast "ith other items in the same system# +hat characteri<es each most exactly is being whatever the others are not( 0Saussure 1526& 113; Saussure 1544& 114; my em!hasis7# )his notion may initially seem mystifying if not !er%erse& ut the conce!t of negati%e differentiation ecomes clearer if "e consider ho" "e might teach someone "ho did not share our language "hat "e mean y the term (red(# +e "ould e unlikely to make our !oint y sim!ly sho"ing them a range of different o Aects "hich all ha!!ened to e red ' "e "ould e !ro a ly do etter to single out a red o Aect from a sets of o Aects "hich "ere identical in all res!ects exce!t colour# .lthough Saussure focuses on s!eech& he also noted that in "riting& (the %alues of the letter are

!urely negati%e and differential( ' all "e need to e a le to do is to distinguish one letter from another 0Saussure 1526& 112; Saussure 1544& 115'1;:7# .s for his em!hasis on negati%e differences& Saussure remarks that although oth the signified and the signifier are !urely differential and negati%e "hen considered se!arately& the sign in "hich they are com ined is a positive term# @e adds that (the moment "e com!are one sign "ith another as !ositi%e com inations& the term difference should e dro!!ed### )"o signs### are not different from each other& ut only distinct# )hey are sim!ly in opposition to each other# )he entire mechanism of language### is ased on o!!ositions of this kind and u!on the !honic and conce!tual differences they in%ol%e( 0Saussure 1526& 115; Saussure 1544& 1;:'1;17# .lthough the signifier is treated y its users as (standing for( the signified& Saussurean semioticians em!hasi<e that there is no necessary& intrinsic& direct or ine%ita le relationshi! et"een the signifier and the signified# Saussure stressed the arbitrariness of the sign 0Saussure 1526& 84& 42; Saussure 1544& 84& 427 ' more s!ecifically the ar itrariness of the link et"een the signifier and the signified 0Saussure 1526& 84; Saussure 1544& 847# @e "as focusing on linguistic signs& seeing language as the most im!ortant sign system; for Saussure& the ar itrary nature of the sign "as the first !rinci!le of language 0Saussure 1526& 84; Saussure 1544& 847 ' ar itrariness "as identified later y Charles @ockett as a key (design feature( of language 0@ockett 1532; @ockett 158:; @ockett 15837# )he feature of ar itrariness may indeed hel! to account for the extraordinary %ersatility of language 0Lyons 1544& 417# In the context of natural language& Saussure stressed that there is no inherent& essential& (trans!arent(& self'e%ident or (natural( connection et"een the signifier and the signified ' et"een the sound or sha!e of a "ord and the conce!t to "hich it refers 0Saussure 1526& 84& 82'85& 48& 111& 114; Saussure 1544& 84& 85& 48& 116& 1157# Dote that Saussure himself a%oids directly relating the !rinci!le of ar itrariness to the relationshi! et"een language and an external "orld& ut that su se*uent commentators often do& and indeed& lurking ehind

the !urely conce!tual (signified( one can often detect Saussure(s allusion to real'"orld referents 0Co"ard J $llis 1544& ;;7# In language at least& the form of the signifier is not determined y "hat it signifiesC there is nothing (treeish( a out the "ord (tree(# Languages differ& of course& in ho" they refer to the same referent# Do s!ecific signifier is (naturally( more suited to a signified than any other signifier; in !rinci!le any signifier could re!resent any signified# Saussure o ser%ed that (there is nothing at all to !re%ent the association of any idea "hatsoe%er "ith any se*uence of sounds "hatsoe%er( 0Saussure 1526& 48; Saussure 1544& 487; (the !rocess "hich selects one !articular sound'se*uence to corres!ond to one !articular idea is com!letely ar itrary( 0Saussure 1526& 111; Saussure 1544& 1167# )his !rinci!le of the ar itrariness of the linguistic sign "as not an original conce!tionC .ristotle had noted that (there can e no natural connection et"een the sound of any language and the things signified( 0cited in Richards 156;& 6;7# In Plato(s Cratylus @ermogenes urged Socrates to acce!t that ("hate%er name you gi%e to a thing is its right name; and if you gi%e u! that name and change it for another& the later name is no less correct than the earlier& Aust as "e change the name of our ser%ants; for I think no name elongs to a !articular thing y nature( 0cited in @arris 1524& 847# ()hat "hich "e call a rose y any other name "ould smell as s"eet(& as Shakes!eare !ut it# +hilst the notion of the ar itrariness of language "as not ne"& ut the em!hasis "hich Saussure ga%e it can e seen as an original contri ution& !articularly in the context of a theory "hich racketed the referent# Dote that although Saussure !rioriti<ed s!eech& he also stressed that (the signs used in "riting are ar itrary& )he letter t& for instance& has no connection "ith the sound it denotes( 0Saussure 1526& 114; Saussure 1544& 1157# )he ar itrariness !rinci!le can e a!!lied not only to the sign& ut to the "hole sign'system# )he fundamental ar itrariness of language is a!!arent from the o ser%ation that each language in%ol%es different distinctions et"een one signifier and

another 0e#g# (tree( and (free(7 and et"een one signified and another 0e#g# (tree( and ( ush(7# )he signified is clearly ar itrary if reality is !ercei%ed as a seamless continuum 0"hich is ho" Saussure sees the initially undifferentiated realms of oth thought and sound7C "here& for exam!le& does a (corner( end, Commonsense suggests that the existence of things in the "orld !receded our a!!arently sim!le a!!lication of (la els( to them 0a (nomenclaturist( notion "hich Saussure reAected and to "hich "e "ill return in due course7# Saussure noted that (if "ords had the Ao of re!resenting conce!ts fixed in ad%ance& one "ould e a le to find exact e*ui%alents for them as et"een one language and another# But this is not the case( 0Saussure 1526& 114'113; Saussure 1544& 1187# Reality is di%ided u! into ar itrary categories y e%ery language and the conce!tual "orld "ith "hich each of us is familiar could ha%e een di%ided u! %ery differently# Indeed& no t"o languages categori<e reality in the same "ay# .s >ohn Passmore !uts it& (Languages differ y differentiating differently( 0cited in Sturrock 1528& 147# Linguistic categories are not sim!ly a conse*uence of some !redefined structure in the "orld# )here are no (natural( conce!ts or categories "hich are sim!ly (reflected( in language# Language !lays a crucial role in (constructing reality(# If one acce!ts the ar itrariness of the relationshi! et"een signifier and signified then one may argue counter'intuiti%ely that the signified is determined y the signifier rather than %ice %ersa# Indeed& the /rench !sychoanalyst >ac*ues Lacan& in ada!ting Saussurean theories& sought to highlight the !rimacy of the signifier in the !syche y re"riting Saussure(s model of the sign in the form of a *uasi'alge raic sign in "hich a ca!ital (S( 0re!resenting the signifier7 is !laced o%er a lo"er case and italici<ed (s( 0re!resenting the signified7& these t"o signifiers eing se!arated y a hori<ontal ( ar( 0Lacan 1544& 1457# )his suited Lacan(s !ur!ose of em!hasi<ing ho" the signified ine%ita ly (sli!s eneath( the signifier& resisting our attem!ts to delimit it# Lacan !oetically refers to Saussure(s illustration of the !lanes of sound and thought as (an image resem ling the "a%y lines of the u!!er and lo"er

+aters in miniatures from manuscri!ts of Genesis; a dou le flux marked y streaks of rain(& suggesting that this can e seen as illustrating the (incessant sliding of the signified under the signifier( ' although he argues that one should regard the dotted %ertical lines not as (segments of corres!ondence( ut as (anchoring !oints( 0points de capiton ' literally& the ( uttons( "hich anchor u!holstery to furniture7# @o"e%er& he notes that this model is too linear& since (there is in effect no signifying chain that does not ha%e& as if attached to the !unctuation of each of its units& a "hole articulation of rele%ant contexts sus!ended (%ertically(& as it "ere& from that !oint( 0ibid.& 1347# In the s!irit of the Lacanian criti*ue of Saussure(s model& su se*uent theorists ha%e em!hasi<ed the tem!orary nature of the ond et"een signifier and signified& stressing that the (fixing( of (the chain of signifiers( is socially situated 0Co"ard J $llis 1544& 8& 16& 14& 847# Dote that "hilst the intent of Lacan in !lacing the signifier over the signified is clear enough& his re!resentational strategy seems a little curious& since in the modelling of society orthodox Marxists routinely re!resent the fundamental dri%ing force of (the Ltechno'economicM ase( as 0logically7 elo" (the LideologicalM su!erstructure(# )he ar itrariness of the sign is a radical conce!t ecause it !ro!oses the autonomy of language in relation to reality# )he Saussurean model& "ith its em!hasis on internal structures "ithin a sign system& can e seen as su!!orting the notion that language does not (reflect( reality ut rather constructs it# +e can use language (to say "hat isn(t in the "orld& as "ell as "hat is# .nd since "e come to kno" the "orld through "hate%er language "e ha%e een orn into the midst of& it is legitimate to argue that our language determines reality& rather than reality our language( 0Sturrock 1528& 457# In their ook The Meaning of Meaning& 9gden and Richards critici<ed Saussure for (neglecting entirely the things for "hich signs stand( 09gden J Richards 15;6& 27# Later critics ha%e lamented his model(s detachment from social context 0Gardiner 155;& 117# Ro ert Stam argues that y ( racketting the referent(& the Saussurean model (se%ers text from history( 0Stam

;:::& 1;;7# +e "ill return to this theme of the relationshi! et"een language and (reality( in our discussion of (modality and re!resentation(# )he ar itrary as!ect of signs does hel! to account for the sco!e for their inter!retation 0and the im!ortance of context7# )here is no one'to'one link et"een signifier and signified; signs ha%e multi!le rather than single meanings# +ithin a single language& one signifier may refer to many signifieds 0e#g# !uns7 and one signified may e referred to y many signifiers 0e#g# synonyms7# Some commentators are critical of the stance that the relationshi! of the signifier to the signified& e%en in language& is al"ays com!letely ar itrary 0e#g# Le"is 1551& ;57# 9nomato!oeic "ords are often mentioned in this context& though some semioticians retort that this hardly accounts for the %aria ility et"een different languages in their "ords for the same sounds 0nota ly the sounds made y familiar animals7 0Saussure 1526& 85; Saussure 1544& 857# Saussure declares that (the entire linguistic system is founded u!on the irrational !rinci!le that the sign is ar itrary(# )his !ro%ocati%e declaration is follo"ed immediately y the ackno"ledgement that (a!!lied "ithout restriction& this !rinci!le "ould lead to utter chaos( 0Saussure 1526& 161; Saussure 1544& 1667# If linguistic signs "ere to e totally ar itrary in e%ery "ay language "ould not e a system and its communicati%e function "ould e destroyed# @e concedes that (there exists no language in "hich nothing at all is moti%ated( 0ibid.7# Saussure admits that (a language is not com!letely ar itrary& for the system has a certain rationality( 0Saussure 1526& 46; Saussure 1544& 467# )he !rinci!le of ar itrariness does not mean that the form of a "ord is accidental or random& of course# +hilst the sign is not determined extralinguistically it is su Aect to intralinguistic determination# /or instance& signifiers must constitute "ell'formed com inations of sounds "hich conform "ith existing !atterns "ithin the language in *uestion# /urthermore& "e can recogni<e that a com!ound noun such as (scre"dri%er( is not "holly ar itrary since it is a meaningful com ination of t"o existing signs#

Saussure introduces a distinction et"een degrees of ar itrarinessC The fundamental *rinci*le of the arbitrary nature of the lin$uistic si$n does not *re7ent us from distin$uishin$ in any lan$ua$e between what is intrinsically arbitrary < that is4 unmoti7ated < and what is only relati7ely arbitrary. Cot all si$ns are absolutely arbitrary. n some cases4 there are factors which allow us to reco$niAe different de$rees of arbitrariness4 althou$h ne7er to discard the notion entirely. The sign may be motivated to a certain extent (Saussure 195(4 1(%= Saussure 193.4 1(1= ori$inal em*hasis4 see also followin$ *a$es) @ere then Saussure modifies his stance some"hat and refers to signs as eing (relati%ely ar itrary(# Some su se*uent theorists 0echoing .lthusserian Marxist terminology7 refer to the relationshi! et"een the signifier and the signified in terms of (relati%e autonomy( 0)agg 1522& 184; Lechte 1554& 13:7# )he relative con%entionality of relationshi!s et"een signified and signifier is a !oint to "hich I return elo"# It should e noted that "hilst the relationshi!s et"een signifiers and their signifieds are ontologically ar itrary 0!hiloso!hically& it "ould not make any difference to the status of these entities in (the order of things( if "hat "e call ( lack( had al"ays een called ("hite( and vice versa7& this is not to suggest that signifying systems are socially or historically ar itrary# Datural languages are not& of course& ar itrarily esta lished& unlike historical in%entions such as Morse Code# Dor does the ar itrary nature of the sign make it socially (neutral( or materially (trans!arent( ' for exam!le& in +estern culture ("hite( has come to e a !ri%ileged signifier 0Gyer 15547# $%en in the case of the (ar itrary( colours of traffic lights& the original choice of red for (sto!( "as not entirely ar itrary& since it already carried rele%ant associations "ith danger# .s LB%i' Strauss noted& the sign is ar itrary a priori ut ceases to e ar itrary a posteriori ' after the sign has come into historical existence it cannot e ar itrarily changed 0LB%i'Strauss 154;& 517# .s !art of its social use "ithin a code 0a term "hich ecame fundamental amongst !ost'Saussurean

semioticians7& e%ery sign ac*uires a history and connotations of its o"n "hich are familiar to mem ers of the sign'users( culture# Saussure remarked that although the signifier (may seem to e freely chosen(& from the !oint of %ie" of the linguistic community it is (im!osed rather than freely chosen( ecause (a language is al"ays an inheritance from the !ast( "hich its users ha%e (no choice ut to acce!t( 0Saussure 1526& 41'4;; Saussure 1544& 417# Indeed& (it is ecause the linguistic sign is ar itrary that it kno"s no other la" than that of tradition& and Lit isM ecause it is founded u!on tradition that it can e ar itrary( 0Saussure 1526& 44; Saussure 1544& 447# )he ar itrariness !rinci!le does not& of course mean that an indi%idual can ar itrarily choose any signifier for a gi%en signified# )he relation et"een a signifier and its signified is not a matter of indi%idual choice; if it "ere then communication "ould ecome im!ossi le# ()he indi%idual has no !o"er to alter a sign in any res!ect once it has ecome esta lished in the linguistic community( 0Saussure 1526& 82; Saussure 1544& 857# /rom the !oint'of'%ie" of indi%idual language'users& language is a (gi%en( ' "e don(t create the system for oursel%es# Saussure refers to the language system as a non'negotia le (contract( into "hich one is orn 0Saussure 1526& 14; Saussure 1544& 147 ' although he later !ro lemati<es the term 0ibid.& 417# )he ontological ar itrariness "hich it in%ol%es ecomes in%isi le to us as "e learn to acce!t it as (natural(# )he Saussurean legacy of the ar itrariness of signs leads semioticians to stress that the relationshi! et"een the signifier and the signified is conventional ' de!endent on social and cultural con%entions# )his is !articularly clear in the case of the linguistic signs "ith "hich Saussure "as concernedC a "ord means "hat it does to us only ecause "e collecti%ely agree to let it do so# Saussure felt that the main concern of semiotics should e (the "hole grou! of systems grounded in the ar itrariness of the sign(# @e argued thatC (signs "hich are entirely ar itrary con%ey etter than others the ideal semiological !rocess# )hat is "hy the most com!lex and the most "ides!read of all systems of ex!ression& "hich is the one "e find in human

languages& is also the most characteristic of all# In this sense& linguistics ser%es as a model for the "hole of semiology& e%en though languages re!resent only one ty!e of semiological system( 0Saussure 1526& 82; Saussure 1544& 827# @e did not in fact offer many exam!les of sign systems other than s!oken language and "riting& mentioning onlyC the deaf'and'dum al!ha et; social customs; eti*uette; religious and other sym olic rites; legal !rocedures; military signals and nautical flags 0Saussure 1526& 13& 14& 82& 44; Saussure 1544& 18& 14& 82& 467# Saussure added that (any means of ex!ression acce!ted in a society rests in !rinci!le u!on a collecti%e ha it& or on con%ention ' "hich comes to the same thing( 0Saussure 1526& 82; Saussure 1544& 827# @o"e%er& "hilst !urely con%entional signs such as "ords are *uite inde!endent of their referents& other less con%entional forms of signs are often some"hat less inde!endent of them# De%ertheless& since the ar itary nature of linguistic signs is clear& those "ho ha%e ado!ted the Saussurean model ha%e tended to a%oid (the familiar mistake of assuming that signs "hich a!!ear natural to those "ho use them ha%e an intrinsic meaning and re*uire no ex!lanation( 0Culler 1543& 37# .t around the same time as Saussure "as formulating his model of the sign& of (semiology( and of a structuralist methodology& across the .tlantic inde!endent "ork "as also in !rogress as the !ragmatist !hiloso!her and logician Charles Sanders Peirce formulated his o"n model of the sign& of (semiotic( and of the taxonomies of signs# In contrast to Saussure(s model of the sign in the form of a (self' contained dyad(& Peirce offered a triadic modelC The Representamen> the form which the si$n takes (not necessarily material)= 'n Interpretant> not an inter*reter but rather the sense made of the si$n= 'n Object> to which the si$n refers.

(. sign### Lin the form of a representamenM is something "hich stands to some ody for something in some res!ect or ca!acity# It addresses some ody& that is& creates in the mind of that !erson an e*ui%alent sign& or !erha!s a more de%elo!ed sign# )hat sign "hich it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign# )he sign stands for something& its ob ect# It stands for that o Aect& not in all res!ects& ut in reference to a sort of idea& "hich I ha%e sometimes called the ground of the re!resentamen( 0Peirce 1561'32& ;#;;27# )he interaction et"een the representamen& the ob ect and the interpretant is referred to y Peirce as (semiosis( 0ibid.& 3#4247# +ithin Peirce(s model of the sign& the traffic light sign for (sto!( "ould consist ofC a red light facing traffic at an intersection 0the re!resentamen7; %ehicles halting 0the o Aect7 and the idea that a red light indicates that %ehicles must sto! 0the inter!retant7# Peirce(s model of the sign includes an ob ect or referent ' "hich does not& of course& feature directly in Saussure(s model# )he representamen is similar in meaning to Saussure(s signifier "hilst the interpretant is similar in meaning to the signified 0Sil%erman 1526& 137# @o"e%er& the interpretant has a *uality unlike that of the signifiedC it is itself a sign in the mind of the inter!reter# Peirce noted that (a sign### addresses some ody& that is& creates in the mind of that !erson an e*ui%alent sign& or !erha!s a more de%elo!ed sign# )he sign "hich it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign( 0Peirce 1561'32& ;#;;27# =m erto $co uses the !hrase (unlimited semiosis( to refer to the "ay in "hich this could lead 0as Peirce "as "ell a"are7 to a series of successi%e inter!retants 0!otentially7 ad infinitum 0ibid.& 1#665& ;#6:67# $lse"here Peirce added that (the meaning of a re!resentation can e nothing ut a re!resentation( 0ibid.& 1#6657# .ny initial inter!retation can e re' inter!reted# )hat a signified can itself !lay the role of a signifier is familiar to anyone "ho uses a dictionary and finds themsel%es going eyond the original definition to look u! yet another "ord "hich it em!loys# )his conce!t can e seen as going eyond Saussure(s em!hasis on the %alue of a sign lying in its relation to other signs and it "as later to e de%elo!ed more radically y !oststructuralist

theorists# .nother conce!t "hich is alluded to "ithin Peirce(s model "hich has een taken u! y later theorists ut "hich "as ex!licitly excluded from Saussure(s model is the notion of dialogical thought# It stems in !art from Peirce(s em!hasis on (semiosis( as a process "hich is in distinct contrast to Saussure(s synchronic em!hasis on structure 0Peirce 1561'32& 3#424& 3#4227# Peirce argued that (all thinking is dialogic in form# -our self of one instant a!!eals to your dee!er self for his assent( 0Peirce 1561'32& 8#6627# )his notion resurfaced in a more de%elo!ed form in the 15;:s in the theories of Mikhail Bakhtin 0Bakhtin 15217# 9ne im!ortant as!ect of this is its characteri<ation e%en of internal reflection as fundamentally social# Peirce& clearly fascinated y tri!artite structures& made a !henomenological distinction et"een the sign itself Lor the re!resentamenM as an instance of (/irstness(& its o Aect as an instance of (Secondness( and the inter!retant as an instance of ()hirdness(# Such unfamiliar terms are relati%ely modest exam!les of Peircean coinages& and the com!lexity of his terminology and style has een a factor in limiting the influence of a distincti%ely Peircean semiotics# Kariants of Peirce(s triad are often !resented as (the semiotic triangle( 0as if there "ere only one %ersion7# @ere is a %ersion "hich is *uite often encountered and "hich changes only the unfamiliar Peircean terms 0DEth 155:& 257C Sign vehicle> the form of the si$n= Sense> the sense made of the si$n= Referent> what the si$n 9stands for9. 9ne fairly "ell'kno"n semiotic triangle is that of 9gden and Richards& in "hich the terms used are 0a7 (sym ol(& 0 7 (thought or reference( and 0c7 (referent( 09gden J Richards 15;6& 147# )he roken line at the ase of the triangle is intended to indicate that there is not necessarily any o ser%a le or direct relationshi! et"een the sign %ehicle and the referent# =nlike Saussure(s a stract signified 0"hich is analogous to term B rather than to C7 the referent is an (o Aect(# )his need not exclude the reference of signs to a stract conce!ts and fictional entities as

"ell as to !hysical things& ut Peirce(s model allocates a !lace for an o Aecti%e reality "hich Saussure(s model did not directly feature 0though Peirce "as not a nai%e realist& and argued that all ex!erience is mediated y signs7# Dote& ho"e%er& that Peirce em!hasi<ed that (the de!endence of the mode of existence of the thing re!resented u!on the mode of this or that re!resentation of it### is contrary to the nature of reality( 0Peirce 1561'32& 3#6;67# )he inclusion of a referent in Peirce(s model does not automatically make it a etter model of the sign than that of Saussure# Indeed& as >ohn Lyons notesC There is considerable disa$reement about the details of the triadic analysis e7en amon$ those who acce*t that all three com*onents4 A4 B and C4 must be taken into account. Should A be defined as a *hysical or a mental entityD 8hat is the *sycholo$ical or ontolo$ical status of BD s C somethin$ that is referred to on a *articular occasionD Or is it the totality of thin$s that mi$ht be referred to by utterin$ the si$n...D Or4 yet a third *ossibility4 is it some ty*ical or ideal re*resentati7e of this classD (;yons 19334 99) )he notion of the im!ortance of sense'making 0"hich re*uires an interpreter ' though Peirce doesn(t feature that term in his triad7 has had a !articular a!!eal for communication and media theorists "ho stress the im!ortance of the acti%e !rocess of inter!retation& and thus reAect the e*uation of (content( and meaning# Many of these theorists allude to semiotic triangles in "hich the inter!reter 0or (user(7 of the sign features ex!licitly 0in !lace of (sense( or (inter!retant(7# )his highlights the process of semiosis 0"hich is %ery much a Peircean conce!t7# )he meaning of a sign is not contained "ithin it& ut arises in its inter!retation# +hether a dyadic or triadic model is ado!ted& the role of the inter!reter must e accounted for ' either "ithin the formal model of the sign& or as an essential !art of the !rocess of semiosis# Ga%id Sless declares that (statements a out users& signs or referents can ne%er e made in isolation from each other# . statement a out one al"ays contains im!lications a out the other t"o( 0Sless 1528& 87# Paul )hi ault argues that the interpreter features im!licitly e%en

"ithin Saussure(s a!!arently dyadic model 0)hi ault 1554& 1247# Dote that semioticians make a distinction et"een a sign and a (sign %ehicle( 0the latter eing a (signifier( to Saussureans and a (re!resentamen( to Peirceans7# )he sign is more than Aust a sign %ehicle# )he term (sign( is often used loosely& so that this distinction is not al"ays !reser%ed# In the Saussurean frame"ork& some references to (the sign( should e to the signifier& and similarly& Peirce himself fre*uently mentions (the sign( "hen& strictly s!eaking& he is referring to the representamen# It is easy to e found guilty of such a sli!!age& !erha!s ecause "e are so used to (looking eyond( the form "hich the sign ha!!ens to take# @o"e%er& to reiterateC the signifier or representamen is the form in "hich the sign a!!ears 0such as the s!oken or "ritten form of a "ord7 "hereas the sign is the "hole meaningful ensem le# +hereas Saussure em!hasi<ed the ar itrary nature of the 0linguistic7 sign& most semioticians stress that signs differ in ho" ar itraryFcon%entional 0or y contrast (trans!arent(7 they are# Sym olism reflects only one form of relationshi! et"een signifiers and their signifieds# +hilst Saussure did not offer a ty!ology of signs& Charles Peirce "as a com!ulsi%e taxonomist and he offered se%eral logical ty!ologies 0Peirce 1561'32& 1#;51& ;#;467# @o"e%er& his di%isions and su di%isions of signs are extraordinarily ela orateC indeed& he offered the theoretical !roAection that there could e 35&:45 ty!es of signsN Peirce himself noted "ryly that this calculation (threatens a multitude of classes too great to e con%eniently carried in one(s head(& adding that ("e shall& I think& do "ell to !ost!one !re!aration for further di%isions until there e a !ros!ect of such a thing eing "anted( 0Peirce 1561'32& 1#;517# @o"e%er& e%en his more modest !ro!osals are dauntingC Susanne Langer commented that (there is ut cold comfort in his assurance that his original 35&:45 ty!es can really e oiled do"n to a mere sixty'six( 0Langer 1531& 387# =nfortunately& the com!lexity of such ty!ologies rendered them (nearly useless( as "orking models for others in the field 0Sturrock 1528& 147# @o"e%er& one of Peirce(s asic

classifications 0first outlined in 12847 has een %ery "idely referred to in su se*uent semiotic studies 0Peirce 1561'32& 1#3847# @e regarded it as (the most fundamental( di%ision of signs 0ibid.& ;#;437# It is less useful as a classification of distinct (ty!es of signs( than of differing (modes of relationshi!( et"een sign %ehicles and their referents 0@a"kes 1544& 1;57# Dote that in the su se*uent account& I ha%e continued to em!loy the Saussurean terms signifier and signified& e%en though Peirce referred to the relation et"een the (sign( 0sic7 and the ob ect& since the Peircean distinctions are most commonly em!loyed "ithin a roadly Saussurean frame"ork# Such incor!oration tends to em!hasi<e 0al eit indirectly7 the referential !otential of the signified "ithin the Saussurean model# @ere then are the three modes together "ith some rief definitions of my o"n and some illustrati%e exam!lesC Symbol/symbolic> a mode in which the si$nifier does not resemble the si$nified but which is fundamentally arbitrary or *urely con7entional < so that the relationshi* must be learnt> e.$. lan$ua$e in $eneral (*lus s*ecific lan$ua$es4 al*habetical letters4 *unctuation marks4 words4 *hrases and sentences)4 numbers4 morse code4 traffic li$hts4 national fla$s= Icon/iconic> a mode in which the si$nifier is *ercei7ed as resembling or imitatin$ the si$nified (reco$niAably lookin$4 soundin$4 feelin$4 tastin$ or smellin$ like it) < bein$ similar in *ossessin$ some of its Eualities> e.$. a *ortrait4 a cartoon4 a scale<model4 onomato*oeia4 meta*hors4 9realistic9 sounds in 9*ro$ramme music94 sound effects in radio drama4 a dubbed film soundtrack4 imitati7e $estures= Index/indexical> a mode in which the si$nifier is not arbitrary but is directly connected in some way (*hysically or causally) to the si$nified < this link can be obser7ed or inferred> e.$. 9natural si$ns9 (smoke4 thunder4 foot*rints4 echoes4 non< synthetic odours and fla7ours)4 medical sym*toms (*ain4 a rash4 *ulse<rate)4 measurin$ instruments (weathercock4 thermometer4 clock4

s*irit<le7el)4 9si$nals9 (a knock on a door4 a *hone rin$in$)4 *ointers (a *ointin$ 9inde19 fin$er4 a directional si$n*ost)4 recordin$s (a *hoto$ra*h4 a film4 7ideo or tele7ision shot4 an audio<recorded 7oice)4 *ersonal 9trademarks9 (handwritin$4 catch*hrase) and inde1ical words (9that94 9this94 9here94 9there9). )he three forms are listed here in decreasing order of con%entionality# Sym olic signs such as language are 0at least7 highly con%entional; iconic signs al"ays in%ol%e some degree of con%entionality; indexical signs (direct the attention to their o Aects y lind com!ulsion( 0Peirce 1561'32& ;#6:87# +ndexical and iconic signifiers can e seen as more constrained y referential signifieds "hereas in the more con%entional symbolic signs the signified can e seen as eing defined to a greater extent y the signifier# +ithin each form signs also %ary in their degree of con%entionality# 9ther criteria might e a!!lied to rank the three forms differently# /or instance& @odge and ?ress suggest that indexicality is ased on an act of Audgement or inference "hereas iconicity is closer to (direct !erce!tion( making the highest (modality( that of iconic signs# Dote that the terms (moti%ation( 0from Saussure7 and (constraint( are sometimes used to descri e the extent to "hich the signified determines the signifier# )he more a signifier is constrained y the signified& the more (moti%ated( the sign isC iconic signs are highly moti%ated; sym olic signs are unmoti%ated# )he less moti%ated the sign& the more learning of an agreed con%ention is re*uired# De%ertheless& most semioticians em!hasi<e the role of con%ention in relation to signs# .s "e shall see& e%en !hotogra!hs and films are uilt on con%entions "hich "e must learn to (read(# Such con%entions are an im!ortant social dimension of semiotics# Peirce and Saussure used the term (symbol( differently from each other# +hilst no"adays most theorists "ould refer to language as a sym olic sign system& Saussure a%oided referring to linguistic signs as (sym ols(& since the ordinary e%eryday use of this term refers to exam!les such as a !air of scales 0signifying ustice7& and he insisted that such

signs are (ne%er "holly ar itrary# )hey are not em!ty configurations(# )hey (sho" at least a %estige of natural connection( et"een the signifier and the signified ' a link "hich he later refers to as (rational( 0Saussure 1526& 82& 46; Saussure 1544& 82& 467# +hilst Saussure focused on the ar itrary nature of the linguistic sign& a more o %ious exam!le of ar itrary sym olism is mathematics# Mathematics does not need to refer to an external "orld at allC its signifieds are indis!uta ly concepts and mathematics is a system of relations 0Langer 1531& ;27# /or Peirce& a sym ol is (a sign "hich refers to the o Aect that it denotes y %irtue of a la"& usually an association of general ideas& "hich o!erates to cause the sym ol to e inter!reted as referring to that o Aect( 0Peirce 1561'32& ;#;457# +e inter!ret sym ols according to (a rule( or (a ha itual connection( 0ibid.& ;#;5;& ;#;54& 1#6857# ()he sym ol is connected "ith its o Aect y %irtue of the idea of the sym ol'using animal& "ithout "hich no such connection "ould exist( 0ibid.& ;#;557# It (is constituted a sign merely or mainly y the fact that it is used and understood as such( 0ibid.& ;#6:47# It ("ould lose the character "hich renders it a sign if there "ere no inter!retant( 0ibid.& ;#6:47# . sym ol is (a con%entional sign& or one de!ending u!on ha it 0ac*uired or in orn7( 0ibid.& ;#;547# (.ll "ords& sentences& ooks and other con%entional signs are sym ols( 0ibid.& ;#;5;7# Peirce thus characteri<es linguistic signs in terms of their conventionality in a similar "ay to Saussure# In a rare direct reference to the ar itrariness of sym ols 0"hich he then called (tokens(7& he noted that they (are& for the most !art& con%entional or ar itrary( 0ibid.& 6#68:7# . sym ol is a sign ("hose s!ecial significance or fitness to re!resent Aust "hat it does re!resent lies in nothing ut the %ery fact of there eing a ha it& dis!osition& or other effecti%e general rule that it "ill e so inter!reted# )ake& for exam!le& the "ord HmanH# )hese three letters are not in the least like a man; nor is the sound "ith "hich they are associated( 0ibid.& 4#4447# @e adds else"here that (a symbol### fulfills its function regardless of any similarity or analogy "ith its o Aect and e*ually regardless of any

factual connection there"ith( ut solely ecause it "ill e inter!reted as a sign 0ibid.& 3#46; original emphasis7# )urning to icons& Peirce declared that an iconic sign re!resents its o Aect (mainly y its similarity( 0Peirce 1561'32& ;#;487# . sign is an icon (insofar as it is like that thing and used as a sign of it( 0ibid.& ;#;447# Indeed& he originally termed such modes& (likenesses( 0e#g# ibid.& 1#3327# @e added that (e%ery !icture 0ho"e%er con%entional its method7( is an icon 0ibid.& ;#;457# Icons ha%e *ualities "hich (resem le( those of the o Aects they re!resent& and they (excite analogous sensations in the mind( 0ibid.& ;#;55; see also 6#68;7# =nlike the index& (the icon has no dynamical connection "ith the o Aect it re!resents( 0ibid.7# >ust ecause a signifier resem les that "hich it de!icts does not necessarily make it !urely iconic# )he !hiloso!her Susanne Langer argues that (the !icture is essentially a sym ol& not a du!licate& of "hat it re!resents( 0Langer 1531& 847# Pictures resem le "hat they re!resent only in some res!ects# +hat "e tend to recogni<e in an image are analogous relations of !arts to a "hole 0ibid.& 84'4:7# /or Peirce& icons included (e%ery diagram& e%en although there e no sensuous resem lance et"een it and its o Aect& ut only an analogy et"een the relations of the !arts of each( 0Peirce 1561'32& ;#;457# (Many diagrams resem le their o Aects not at all in looks; it is only in res!ect to the relations of their !arts that their likeness consists( 0ibid.& ;#;2;7# $%en the most (realistic( image is not a re!lica or e%en a co!y of "hat is de!icted# +e rarely mistake a re!resentation for "hat it re!resents# Semioticians generally maintain that there are no (!ure( icons ' there is al"ays an element of cultural con%ention in%ol%ed# Peirce stated that although (any material image( 0such as a !ainting7 may e !ercei%ed as looking like "hat it re!resents& it is (largely con%entional in its mode of re!resentation( 0Peirce 1561'32& ;#;487# (+e say that the !ortrait of a !erson "e ha%e not seen is convincing# So far as& on the ground merely of "hat I see in it& I am led to form an idea of the !erson it re!resents& it is an icon# But& in fact& it is not a !ure icon& ecause I am greatly influenced y kno"ing that it is an effect&

through the artist& caused y the original(s a!!earance### Besides& I kno" that !ortraits ha%e ut the slightest resem lance to their originals& exce!t in certain con%entional res!ects& and after a con%entional scale of %alues& etc#( 0ibid.& ;#5;7# Guy Cook asks "hether the iconic sign on the door of a !u lic la%atory for men actually looks more like a man than like a "oman# (/or a sign to e truly iconic& it "ould ha%e to e trans!arent to someone "ho had ne%er seen it efore ' and it seems unlikely that this is as much the case as is sometimes su!!osed# +e see the resem lance "hen "e already kno" the meaning( 0Cook 155;& 4:7# )hus& e%en a (realistic( !icture is symbolic as "ell as iconic# Iconic and indexical signs are more likely to e read as (natural( than sym olic signs "hen making the connection et"een signifier and signified has ecome ha itual# Iconic signifiers can e highly e%ocati%e# ?ent Grayson o ser%esC (Because "e can see the o Aect in the sign& "e are often left "ith a sense that the icon has rought us closer to the truth than if "e had instead seen an index or a sym ol( 0Grayson 1552& 687# @e adds that (instead of dra"ing our attention to the ga!s that al"ays exist in re!resentation& iconic ex!eriences encourage us su consciously to fill in these ga!s and then to elie%e that there "ere no ga!s in the first !lace### )his is the !aradox of re!resentationC it may decei%e most "hen "e think it "orks est( 0ibid.& 417# )he linguist >ohn Lyons notes that iconicity is (al"ays de!endent u!on !ro!erties of the medium in "hich the form is manifest( 0Lyons 1544& 1:37# @e offers the exam!le of the onomato!oeic $nglish "ord cuc!oo& noting that it is only iconic in the !honic medium 0s!eech7 and not in the gra!hic medium 0"riting7# +hilst the !honic medium can re!resent characteristic sounds 0al eit in a relati%ely con%entionali<ed "ay7& the gra!hic medium can re!resent characteristic sha!es 0as in the case of $gy!tian hierogly!hs7 0Lyons 1544& 1:67# +e "ill return shortly to the im!ortance of the materiality of the sign# +ndexicality is !erha!s the most unfamiliar conce!t# Peirce offers %arious criteria for "hat constitutes an index# .n index (indicates( somethingC for exam!le& (a

sundial or clock indicates the time of day( 0Peirce 1561'32& ;#;237# @e refers to a (genuine relation( et"een the (sign( and the ob ect "hich does not de!end !urely on (the inter!reting mind( 0ibid.& ;#5;& ;527# )he ob ect is (necessarily existent( 0ibid.& ;#61:7# )he index is connected to its o Aect (as a matter of fact( 0ibid.& 4#4447# )here is (a real connection( 0ibid.& 3#437# )here may e a (direct !hysical connection( 0ibid.& 1#64;& ;#;21& ;#;557# .n indexical sign is like (a fragment torn a"ay from the o Aect( 0ibid.& ;#;617# =nlike an icon 0the o Aect of "hich may e fictional7 an index stands (une*ui%ocally for this or that existing thing( 0ibid.& 4#3617# +hilst (it necessarily has some *uality in common( "ith it& the signifier is (really affected( y the signified; there is an (actual modification( in%ol%ed 0ibid.& ;#;427# )he relationshi! is not ased on (mere resem lance( 0ibid.7C (indices### ha%e no significant resem lance to their o Aects( 0ibid.& ;#6:87# (Similarity or analogy( are not "hat define the index 0ibid.& ;#6:37# (.nything "hich focusses the attention is an index# .nything "hich startles us is an index( 0ibid.& ;#;23; see also 6#4647# Indexical signs (direct the attention to their o Aects y lind com!ulsion( 0ibid.& ;#6:8; see also ;#151& ;#4;27# (Psychologically& the action of indices de!ends u!on association y contiguity& and not u!on association y resem lance or u!on intellectual o!erations( 0ibid.7# +hilst a !hotogra!h is also !ercei%ed as resem ling that "hich it de!icts& Peirce noted that a !hotogra!h is not only iconic ut also indexicalC (!hotogra!hs& es!ecially instantaneous !hotogra!hs& are %ery instructi%e& ecause "e kno" that in certain res!ects they are exactly like the o Aects they re!resent# But this resem lance is due to the !hotogra!hs ha%ing een !roduced under such circumstances that they "ere !hysically forced to corres!ond !oint y !oint to nature# In that as!ect& then& they elong to the### class of signs### y !hysical connection Lthe indexical classM( 0Peirce 1561'32& ;#;21; see also 3#3347# So in this sense& since the !hotogra!hic image is an index of the effect of light on !hotogra!hic emulsion& all unedited !hotogra!hic and filmic images are indexical 0although "e should remem er that con%entional !ractices are al"ays in%ol%ed in

com!osition& focusing& de%elo!ing and so on7# Such images do of course (resem le( "hat they de!ict& and it has een suggested the (real force( of the !hotogra!hic and filmic image (lies in its iconic signification( 0Geacon et al. 1555& 1227# @o"e%er& "hilst digital imaging techni*ues are increasingly eroding the indexicality of !hotogra!hic images& it is argua le that it is the indexicality still routinely attri uted to the medium "hich is !rimarily res!onsi le for inter!reters treating them as (o Aecti%e( records of (reality(# Peirce o ser%ed that (a !hotogra!h### o"ing to its o!tical connection "ith its o Aect& is e%idence that that a!!earance corres!onds to a reality( 0Peirce 1561'32& 4#4447# In many contexts !hotogra!hs are indeed regarded as (e%idence(& not least in legal contexts# .s for the mo%ing image& %ideo'cameras are of course "idely used (in e%idence(# Gocumentary film and location footage in tele%ision ne"s !rogrammes de!end u!on the indexical nature of the sign# In such genres indexicality seems to "arrant the status of the material as evidence# Photogra!hic and filmic images may also e symbolicC in an em!irical study of tele%ision ne"s& Ga%is and +alton found that . relati%ely small !ro!ortion of the total num er of shots is iconic or directly re!resentati%e of the !eo!le& !laces and e%ents "hich are su Aects of the ne"s text# . far greater !ro!ortion of shots has an o li*ue relationshi! to the text; they (stand for( the su Aect matter indexically or sym olically 0Ga%is J +alton 1526 & 437# It is easy to sli! into referring to Peirce(s three forms as (ty!es of signs(& ut they are not necessarily mutually exclusi%eC a sign can e an icon& a sym ol and an index& or any com ination# Peirce "as fully a"are of thisC for instance& he insisted that (it "ould e difficult if not im!ossi le to instance an a solutely !ure index& or to find any sign a solutely de%oid of the indexical *uality( 0Peirce 1561'32& ;#6:87# . ma! is indexical in !ointing to the locations of things& iconic in its re!resentation of the directional relations and distances et"een landmarks and sym olic in using con%entional sym ols the significance of "hich must e learnt# )he film theorist Peter +ollen argues that (the great merit of Peirce(s analysis of signs is

that he did not see the different as!ects as mutually exclusi%e# =nlike Saussure he did not sho" any !articular !reAudice in fa%our of one or the other# Indeed& he "anted a logic and a rhetoric "hich "ould e ased on all three as!ects( 0+ollen 1585& 1417# /ilm and tele%ision use all three formsC icon 0sound and image7& sym ol 0s!eech and "riting7& and index 0as the effect of "hat is filmed7; at first sight iconic signs seem the dominant form& ut some filmic signs are fairly ar itrary& such as (dissol%es( "hich signify that a scene from someone(s memory is to follo"# @a"kes notes& follo"ing >ako son& that the three modes (co'exist in the form of a hierarchy in "hich one of them "ill ine%ita ly ha%e dominance o%er the other t"o(& "ith dominance determined y context 0@a"kes 1544& 1;57# +hether a sign is sym olic& iconic or indexical de!ends !rimarily on the "ay in "hich the sign is used& so text ook exam!les chosen to illustrate the %arious modes can e misleading# )he same signifier may e used iconically in one context and sym olically in anotherC a !hotogra!h of a "oman may stand for some road category such as ("omen( or may more s!ecifically re!resent only the !articular "oman "ho is de!icted# Signs cannot e classified in terms of the three modes "ithout reference to the !ur!oses of their users "ithin !articular contexts# . sign may conse*uently e treated as sym olic y one !erson& as iconic y another and as indexical y a third# .s ?ent Grayson !uts it& (+hen "e s!eak of an icon& an index or a sym ol& "e are not referring to o Aecti%e *ualities of the sign itself& ut to a %ie"er(s ex!erience of the sign( 0Grayson 1552& 637# Signs may also shift in mode o%er time# .s >onathan Culler notes& (In one sense a Rolls'Royce is an index of "ealth in that one must e "ealthy in order to !urchase one& ut it has een made a con%entional sign of "ealth y social usage( 0Culler 1543& 147# Ges!ite his em!hasis on studying (the language' state( (synchronically( 0as if it "ere fro<en at one moment in time7 rather than (diachronically( 0studying its e%olution7& Saussure "as "ell a"are that the relationshi! et"een the signified and the signifier in language "as su Aect to change o%er time

0Saussure 1526& 44ff; Saussure 1544& 44ff7# @o"e%er& this "as not the focus of his concern# Critics of structuralist a!!roaches em!hasi<e that the relation et"een signifier and signified is su Aect to dynamic changeC Rosalind Co"ard and >ohn $llis argue that any (fixing( of (the chain of signifiers( ' is oth tem!orary and socially determined 0Co"ard J $llis 1544& 8& 2& 167# In terms of Peirce(s three modes& a historical shift from one mode to another tends to occur# .lthough Peirce made far more allo"ance for non'linguistic signs than did Saussure& like Saussure& he too granted greater status to symbolic signsC (they are the only general signs; and generality is essential to reasoning( 0Peirce 1561'32& 6#686; see also 4#442 J 4#3617# Saussure(s em!hasis on the im!ortance of the !rinci!le of ar itrariness reflects his !rioriti<ing of sym olic signs "hilst Peirce referred to "omo sapiens as (the sym ol'using animal( 0Peirce 1561' 32& ;#;557# )he idea of the e%olution of sign'systems to"ards the sym olic mode is consistent "ith such a !ers!ecti%e# Peirce s!eculates ("hether there e a life in signs& so that ' the re*uisite %ehicle eing !resent ' they "ill go through a certain order of de%elo!ment(# Interestingly& he does not !resent this as necessarily a matter of !rogress to"ards the (ideal( of sym olic form since he allo"s for the theoretical !ossi ility that (the same round of changes of form is descri ed o%er and o%er again( 0ibid.& ;#1117# +hilst granting such a !ossi ility& he ne%ertheless notes that (a regular !rogression### may e remarked in the three orders of signs& Icon& Index& Sym ol( 0ibid.& ;#;557# Peirce !osits iconicity as the original default mode of signification& declaring the icon to e (an originalian sign( 0ibid.& ;#5;7& defining this as (the most !rimiti%e& sim!le and original of the categories( 0ibid.& ;#5:7# Com!ared to the (genuine sign### or sym ol(& an index is (degenerate in the lesser degree( "hilst an icon is (degenerate in the greater degree(# Peirce noted that signs "ere (originally in !art iconic& in !art indexical( 0ibid.& ;#5;7# @e adds that (in all !rimiti%e "riting& such as the $gy!tian hierogly!hics& there are icons of a non' logical kind& the ideogra!hs( and he s!eculates that (in the earliest form of s!eech there !ro a ly "as a

large element of mimicry( 0ibid.& ;#;2:7# @o"e%er& o%er time& linguistic signs de%elo!ed a more sym olic and con%entional character 0ibid.& ;#5;& ;#;2:7# (Sym ols come into eing y de%elo!ment out of other signs& !articularly from icons( 0ibid.& ;#6:;7# )he historical e%idence does indicate a tendency of linguistic signs to e%ol%e from indexical and iconic forms to"ards sym olic forms# .l!ha ets "ere not initially ased on the su stitution of con%entional sym ols for sounds# Marcel Ganesi notes that (archaeological research suggests### that the origins of al!ha etical "riting lie in sym ols !re%iously made out of elemental sha!es that "ere used as image'making o Aects ' much like the moulds that figurine and coin'makers use today# 9nly later did they take on more a stract *ualities( 0Ganesi 1555& 63; see Schmandt'Besserat 15427# Some of the letters in the Greek and Latin al!ha ets& of course& deri%e from iconic signs in $gy!tian hierogly!hs# )he early scri!ts of the Mediterranean ci%ili<ations used !ictogra!hs& ideogra!hs and hierogly!hs# Many of these "ere iconic signs resem ling the o Aects and actions to "hich they referred either directly or meta!horically# 9%er time& !icture "riting ecame more sym olic and less iconic 0Gel 15867# )his shift from the iconic to the sym olic may ha%e een (dictated y the economy of using a chisel or a reed rush( 0Cherry 1588& 667; in general& sym ols are semiotically more flexi le and efficient 0Lyons 1544& 1:67# )he anthro!ologist Claude LB%i'Strauss identified a similar general mo%ement from moti%ation to ar itrariness "ithin the conce!tual schemes em!loyed y !articular cultures 0LB%i'Strauss 1544& 1387# )aking a historical !ers!ecti%e is one reason for the insistence of some theorists that (signs are ne%er ar itrary( 0?ress J %an Leeu"en 1558& 47# Gunther ?ress& for instance& em!hasi<es the moti%ation of the sign users rather than of the sign 0see also @odge J ?ress 1522& ;1';7# Rosalind Co"ard and >ohn $llis

insist that (e%ery identity et"een signifier and signified is the result of !roducti%ity and a "ork of limiting that !roducti%ity( 0Co"ard J $llis 1544& 47# . distinction is sometimes made et"een digital and analogical signs# Indeed& .nthony +ilden declares that (no t"o categories& and no t"o kinds of ex!erience are more fundamental in human life and thought than continuity and discontinuity( 0+ilden 1524& ;;;7# +hilst "e ex!erience time as a continuum& "e may re!resent it in either analogue or digital form# . "atch "ith an analogue dis!lay 0"ith hour& minute and second hands7 has the ad%antage of di%iding an hour u! like a cake 0so that& in a lecture& for instance& "e can (see( ho" much time is left7# . "atch "ith a digital dis!lay 0dis!laying the current time as a changing num er7 has the ad%antage of !recision& so that "e can easily see exactly "hat time it is (no"(# $%en an analogue dis!lay is no" simulated on some digital "atches# +e ha%e a dee! attachment to analogical modes and "e tend to regard digital re!resentations as (less real( or (less authentic( ' at least initially 0as in the case of the audio CG com!ared to the %inyl LP7# )he analogue*digital distinction is fre*uently re!resented as (natural( %ersus (artificial(# Perha!s this is connected in !art "ith the notion that the unconscious ' that "hich "e regard as (dee!est( "ithin us ' a!!ears to o!erate analogically 0+ilden 1524& ;;47# )he !ri%ileging of the analogical may e linked "ith the status of the unconscious and the defiance of rationality in romantic ideology 0"hich still dominates our conce!tion of oursel%es as (indi%iduals(7# )he deli erate intention to communicate tends to e dominant in digital codes& "hilst in analogue codes (it is almost im!ossi le### not to communicate( 0ibid.& ;;37# Beyond any conscious intention& "e communicate through gesture& !osture& facial ex!ression& intonation and so on# .nalogical codes una%oida ly (gi%e us a"ay(& re%ealing such things as our moods& attitudes& intentions and truthfulness 0or other"ise7# @o"e%er& although the a!!earance of the (digital "atch( in 1541 and the su se*uent (digital re%olution( in audio' and %ideo'recording ha%e led us to associate the digital mode "ith electronic technologies& digital

codes ha%e existed since the earliest forms of language ' and "riting is a (digital technology(# Signifying systems im!ose digital order on "hat "e often ex!erience as a dynamic and seamless flux# )he %ery definition of something as a sign in%ol%es reducing the continuous to the discrete# .s "e shall see later& inary 0either*or7 distinctions are a fundamental !rocess in the creation of signifying structures# Gigital signs in%ol%e discrete units such as "ords and ("hole num ers( and de!end on the categori<ation of "hat is signified# .nalogical signs 0such as %isual images& gestures& textures& tastes and smells7 in%ol%e graded relationshi!s on a continuum# )hey can signify infinite su tleties "hich seem ( eyond "ords(# $motions and feelings are analogical signifieds# =nlike sym olic signifiers& moti%ated signifiers 0and their signifieds7 lend into one another# )here can e no com!rehensi%e catalogue of such dynamic analogue signs as smiles or laughs# .nalogue signs can of course e digitally re!roduced 0as is demonstrated y the digital recording of sounds and of oth still and mo%ing images7 ut they cannot e directly related to a standard (dictionary( and syntax in the "ay that linguistic signs can# Bill Dichols notes that (the graded *uality of analogue codes may make them rich in meaning ut it also renders them some"hat im!o%erished in syntactical com!lexity or semantic !recision# By contrast the discrete units of digital codes may e some"hat im!o%erished in meaning ut ca!a le of much greater com!lexity or semantic signification( 0Dichols 1521& 44; see also +ilden 1524& 162& ;;47# )he art historian $rnst Gom rich insists that (statements cannot e translated into images( and that (!ictures cannot assert( ' a contention also found in Peirce 0Gom rich 152;& 162& 143; Peirce 1561'32& ;#;517# De%ertheless& "hilst images ser%ing such communicati%e !ur!oses may e more (o!en to inter!retation(& contem!orary %isual ad%ertisements are a !o"erful exam!le of ho" images may e used to make im!licit claims "hich ad%ertisers often !refer not to make more o!enly in "ords# )he Italian semiotician =m erto $co has critici<ed the a!!arent e*uation of the terms (ar itrary(&

(con%entional( and (digital( y some commentators# @e notes the "ay in "hich the follo"ing "ides!read !airings misleadingly suggest that the terms %ertically aligned here are synonymous 0$co 1548& 15:7# @e o ser%es& for instance& that a !hotogra!h may e oth (moti%ated( and (digital(# Dor is (con%entionality( 0de!endence on social and cultural con%entions7 e*ui%alent to (ar itrariness( 0the lack of any intrinsic connection et"een the signifier and the signified7# -et it is easy to sli! into treating such terms as e*ui%alent ' the current text far from immune to this# +e may& as "e shall see later& e so fond of analogy that "e are often 0!erha!s una%oida ly7 its un"itting %ictims# di$ital arbitary con7entional 7s. 7s. 7s. analo$ical moti7ated natural

.nother distinction et"een sign %ehicles relates to the linguistic conce!t of to!ens and types "hich deri%es from Peirce 0Peirce 1561'32& 4#3647# In relation to "ords in a s!oken utterance or "ritten text& a count of the tokens "ould e a count of the total num er of "ords used 0regardless of ty!e7& "hilst a count of the ty!es "ould e a count of the different "ords used& ignoring re!etitions# In the language of semantics& tokens instantiate 0are instances of7 their ty!e# (+ord( and ("ord( are instances of the same ty!e# Language de!ends on the distinction et"een tokens and ty!es& et"een the !articular instance and the general category# )his is the asis of categori<ation# >ohn Lyons notes that "hether something is counted as a token of a ty!e is relati%e to one(s !ur!oses ' for instanceC 're tokens to include words with different meanin$s which ha**en to be s*elt or *ronounced in the same wayD -oes a ca*ital letter instantiate the same ty*e as the corres*ondin$ lower<case letterD -oes a word *rinted in italics instantiate the same ty*e as a word *rinted in )omanD

s a word handwritten by F e7er the same as a word handwritten by 6D (;yons 19334 1(<10)

/rom a semiotic !oint'of'%ie"& such *uestions could only e ans"ered y considering in each case "hether the different forms signified something of any conse*uence to the rele%ant sign'users in the context of the s!ecific signifying !ractice eing studied# $co lists three kinds of sign %ehicles& and it is nota le that the distinction relates in !art at least to material formC si$ns in which there may be any number of tokens (re*licas) of the same ty*e (e.$. a *rinted word4 or e1actly the same model of car in the same colour)= 9si$ns whose tokens4 e7en thou$h *roduced accordin$ to a ty*e4 *ossess a certain Euality of material uniEueness9 (e.$. a word which someone s*eaks or which is handwritten)= 9si$ns whose token is their ty*e4 or si$ns in which ty*e and token are identical9 (e.$. a uniEue ori$inal oil<*aintin$ or /rincess -iana9s weddin$ dress). (+co 19324 135ff) )he ty!e'token distinction may influence the "ay in "hich a text is inter!reted# In his influential essay on ()he +ork of .rt in the .ge of Mechanical Re!roduction(& the literary'!hiloso!hical theorist +alter BenAamin 0125;'154:7 noted that technological society is dominated y re!roductions of original "orks ' tokens of the original ty!e 0BenAamin 155;& ;11';447# Indeed& e%en if "e do see& for instance& (the original( of a famous oil' !ainting& "e are highly likely to ha%e seen it first in the form of innumera le re!roductions 0 ooks& !ostcards& !osters ' sometimes e%en in the form of !astiches or %ariations on the theme7 and "e may only e a le to (see( the original in the light of the Audgements sha!ed y the co!ies or %ersions "hich "e ha%e encountered 0see Intertextuality7# In the !ostmodern era& the ulk of our texts are indeed (co!ies "ithout originals(# )he ty!e'token distinction in relation to signs is im!ortant in social semiotic terms not as an a solute

!ro!erty of the sign %ehicle ut only insofar as it matters on any gi%en occasion 0for !articular !ur!oses7 to those in%ol%ed in using the sign# Minute differences in a !attern could e a matter of life and death for gam lers in relation to %ariations in the !attern on the acks of !laying'cards "ithin the same !ack& ut stylistic differences in the design of each ty!e of card 0such as the .ce of S!ades7& are much a!!reciated y collectors as a distincti%e feature of different !acks of !laying'cards# .s already indicated& Saussure sa" oth the signifier and the signified as non'material (!sychological( forms; the language itself is (a form& not a su stance( 0Saussure 1526& 111& 1;:; Saussure 1544& 116& 1;;7# @e uses se%eral exam!les to reinforce his !oint# /or instance& in one of se%eral chess analogies& he notes that (if !ieces made of i%ory are su stituted for !ieces made of "ood& the change makes no difference to the system( 0Saussure 1526& ;6; Saussure 1544& ;;7# Pursuing this functional a!!roach& he notes else"here that the 2#;3!m Gene%a'to'Paris train is referred to as (the same train( e%en though the com inations of locomoti%e& carriages and !ersonnel may change# Similarly& he asks "hy a street "hich is com!letely re uilt can still e (the same street(# @e suggests that this is ( ecause it is not a !urely material structure( 0Saussure 1526& 1:4; Saussure 1544& 1:27# Saussure insists that this is not to say that such entities are (a stract( since "e cannot concei%e of a street or train outside of its material reali<ation ' (their !hysical existence is essential to our understanding of "hat they are( 0Saussure 1526& 1:4; Saussure 1544& 1:5; see also ibid& 137# )his can e related to the ty!e'token distinction# Since Saussure sees language in terms of formal function rather than material su stance& then "hate%er !erforms the same function "ithin the system can e regarded as Aust another token of the same ty!e# +ith regard to language& Saussure o ser%es that (sound& as a material element### is merely ancillary& a material the language uses( 0Saussure 1526& 118; Saussure 1544& 1127# Linguistic signifiers are (not !hysical in any "ay# )hey are constituted solely y differences "hich distinguish one such sound !attern from

another( 0Saussure 1526& 114; Saussure 1544& 112' 1157# @e admits at one !oint& "ith some a!!arent reluctance& that (linguistic signs are& so to s!eak& tangi leC "riting can fix them in con%entional images( 0Saussure 1526& 13; Saussure 1544& 137# @o"e%er& referring to "ritten signs& he comments that (the actual mode of inscri!tion is irrele%ant& ecause it does not affect the system### +hether I "rite in lack or "hite& in incised characters or in relief& "ith a !en or a chisel ' none of that is of any im!ortance for the meaning( 0Saussure 1526& 112; Saussure 1544& 1;:7# 9ne can understand ho" a linguist "ould tend to focus on form and function "ithin language and to regard the material manifestations of language as of !eri!heral interest# ()he linguist### is interested in ty!es& not tokens( 0Lyons 1544& ;27# )his "as not only the attitude of the linguist Saussure& ut also of the !hiloso!her PeirceC ()he "ord HmanH### does not consist of three films of ink# If the "ord HmanH occurs hundreds of times in a ook of "hich myriads of co!ies are !rinted& all those millions of tri!lets of !atches of ink are em odiments of one and the same "ord### each of those em odiments a replica of the sym ol# )his sho"s that the "ord is not a thing( 0Peirce 1561'32& 4#4447# Peirce did refer to the materiality of the signC (since a sign is not identical "ith the thing signified& ut differs from the latter in some res!ects& it must !lainly ha%e some characters "hich elong to it in itself### )hese I call the material *ualities of the sign(# @e granted that materiality is a !ro!erty of the sign "hich is (of great im!ortance in the theory of cognition(# Materiality had (nothing to do "ith its re!resentati%e function( and it did not feature in his classificatory schemes# @o"e%er& he alludes riefly to the signifying !otential of materialityC (if I take all the things "hich ha%e certain *ualities and !hysically connect them "ith another series of things& each to each& they ecome fit to e signs(# /or instance& if the colour of a red flo"er matters to someone then redness is a sign 0ibid.& 3#;247# +hilst Saussure chose to ignore the materiality of the linguistic sign& most su se*uent theorists "ho ha%e ado!ted his model ha%e chosen to reclaim the materiality of the sign 0or more strictly of the

signifier7# Semioticians must take seriously any factors to "hich sign'users ascri e significance& and the material form of a sign does sometimes make a difference# Contem!orary theorists tend to ackno"ledge that the material form of the sign may generate connotations of its o"n# .s early as 15;5 Kalentin Koloshino% !u lished Marxism and the ,hilosophy of Language "hich included a materialist criti*ue of Saussure(s !sychological and im!licitly idealist model of the sign# Koloshino% descri ed Saussure(s ideas as (the most striking ex!ression( of (a stract o Aecti%ism( 0Koloshino% 1546& 327# @e insisted that (a sign is a !henomenon of the external "orld( and that (signs### are !articular& material things(# $%ery sign (has some kind of material em odiment& "hether in sound& !hysical mass& colour& mo%ements of the ody& or the like( 0ibid.& 1:' 11; cf. ;27# /or Koloshino%& all signs& including language& ha%e (concrete material reality( 0ibid.& 837 and the !hysical !ro!erties of the sign matter# Psychoanalytic theory also contri uted to the re%aluation of the signifier ' in /reudian dream theory the sound of the signifier could e regarded as a etter guide to its !ossi le signified than any con%entional (decoding( might ha%e suggested 0/reud 1562& 6157# /or instance& /reud re!orted that the dream of a young "oman engaged to e married featured flo"ers ' including lilies'of'the'%alley and %iolets# Po!ular sym olism suggested that the lilies "ere a sym ol of chastity and the "oman agreed that she associated them "ith !urity# @o"e%er& /reud "as sur!rised to disco%er that she associated the "ord (%iolet( !honetically "ith the $nglish "ord (%iolate(& suggesting her fear of the %iolence of (defloration( 0another "ord alluding to flo"ers7 0/reud 1562& 62;'67# If this sounds familiar& this !articular dream motif featured in the film -inal 'nalysis 0155;7# .s the !sychoanalytical theorist >ac*ues Lacan em!hasi<ed 0originally in 15347& the /reudian conce!ts of condensation and displacement illustrate the determination of the signified y the signifier in dreams 0Lacan 1544& 135ff7# In condensation& se%eral thoughts are condensed into one sym ol& "hilst in displacement unconscious desire is

dis!laced into an a!!arently tri%ial sym ol 0to a%oid dream censorshi!7# Poststructuralist theorists ha%e sought to re%alori<e the signifier# )he !honocentrism "hich "as allied "ith Saussure(s su!!ression of the materiality of the linguistic sign "as challenged in 1584& "hen the /rench !oststructuralist >ac*ues Gerrida& in his ook .f Grammatology& attacked the !ri%ileging of s!eech o%er "riting "hich is found in Saussure 0as "ell as in the "ork of many other !re%ious and su se*uent linguists7 0Gerrida 15487# /rom Plato to LB%i'Strauss& the s!oken "ord had held a !ri%ileged !osition in the +estern "orld%ie"& eing regarded as intimately in%ol%ed in our sense of self and constituting a sign of truth and authenticity# S!eech had ecome so thoroughly naturali<ed that (not only do the signifier and the signified seem to unite& ut also& in this confusion& the signifier seems to erase itself or to ecome trans!arent( 0Gerrida 1521& ;;7# +riting had traditionally een relegated to a secondary !osition# )he deconstructi%e enter!rise marked (the return of the re!ressed( 0Gerrida 1542& 1547# In seeking to esta lish (Grammatology( or the study of textuality& Gerrida cham!ioned the !rimacy of the material "ord# @e noted that the s!ecificity of "ords is itself a material dimension# ()he materiality of a "ord cannot e translated or carried o%er into another language# Materiality is !recisely that "hich translation relin*uishes( ' this $nglish translation !resuma ly illustrating some such loss 0ibid.& ;1:7# Roland Barthes also sought to re%alori<e the role of the signifier in the act of "riting# @e argued that in (classic( literary "riting& the "riter (is al"ays su!!osed to go from signified to signifier& from content to form& from idea to text& from !assion to ex!ression( 0Barthes 1544& 1447# @o"e%er& this "as directly o!!osite to the "ay in "hich Barthes characteri<ed the act of "riting# /or him& "riting "as a matter of "orking "ith the signifiers and letting the signifieds take care of themsel%es ' a !aradoxical !henomenon "hich other "riters ha%e often re!orted 0Chandler 1553& 8:ff7# Su se*uent theorists ha%e also sought to (remateriali<e( the linguistic sign& stressing that "ords are things and that texts are

!art of the material "orld 0e#g# Co"ard J $llis 1544; Sil%erman J )orode 152:7# >ay Ga%id Bolter argues that (signs are al"ays anchored in a medium# Signs may e more or less de!endent u!on the characteristics of one medium ' they may transfer more or less "ell to other media ' ut there is no such thing as a sign "ithout a medium( 0Bolter 1551& 153'87# )his is a little misleading& ecause& as >ustin Le"is notes& (the sign has no material existence& since meaning is rought to "ords or o Aects& not inscribed within them# 9nly the signifier ' the unit !rior to meaning ' exists as a material entity( 0+ren'Le"is 1526& 1217# De%ertheless& Bolter(s !oint does a!!ly to the sign %ehicle& and as @odge and )ri!! note& (fundamental to all semiotic analysis is the fact that any system of signs 0semiotic code7 is carried y a material medium which has its own principles of structure( 0@odge J )ri!! 1528& 147# /urthermore& some media dra" on se%eral interacting sign systemsC tele%ision and film& for exam!le& utili<e %er al& %isual& auditory and locomoti%e signs# )he medium is not (neutral(; each medium has its o"n constraints and& as =m erto $co notes& each is already (charged "ith cultural signification( 0$co 1548& ;847# /or instance& !hotogra!hic and audio'%isual media are almost in%aria ly regarded as more (real( than other forms of re!resentation# Gunther ?ress and )heo %an Leeu"en argue that (the material ex!ression of the text is al"ays significant; it is a se!arately %aria le semiotic feature( 0?ress J %an Leeu"en 1558& ;617# Changing the signifier at the le%el of the form or medium may thus influence the signified ' the sense "hich readers make of "hat is ostensi ly the same (content(# Breaking u! a relationshi! y fax is likely to e regarded in a different light from reaking u! in a face'to'face situation# I ha%e alluded to the !ro lematic distinction et"een form and content# )he linguist Louis @Aelmsle% ackno"ledged that (there can e no content "ithout an ex!ression& or ex!ressionless content; neither can there e an ex!ression "ithout a content& or content'less ex!ression( 0@Aelmsle% 1581& 457# @o"e%er& he offered a frame"ork "hich facilitated analytical distinctions 0ibid.& 44ff7# +hilst he referred

to (!lanes( of ex!ression and content 0Saussure(s signifier and signified7& he enriched this model 0ibid.& 8:7# @is contri ution "as to suggest that oth expression and content ha%e substance and form# )hus there are four categoriesC su stance of ex!ression& form of ex!ression& su stance of content& form of content# Karious theorists such as Christian Met< ha%e uilt u!on this theoretical distinction and they differ some"hat in "hat they assign to the four categories 0see )udor 1544& 11:; Baggaley J Guck 1548& 145; Met< 15217# Substance Substance of expression> *hysical materials of the medium (e.$. *hoto$ra*hs4 recorded 7oices4 *rinted words on *a*er) Substance of content> 9human content9 (&etA)4 te1tual world4 subBect matter4 $enre orm Form of expression> lan$ua$e4 formal syntactic structure4 techniEue and style Form of content> 9semantic structure9 (:a$$aley G -uck)4 9thematic structure9 (includin$ narrati7e) (&etA)

Signifiers> *lane of expression

Signifieds> *lane of content

+hereas Saussure had insisted that language is (a form& not a su stance(& @Aelmsle%(s frame"ork allo"s us to analyse texts according to their %arious dimensions and to grant to each of these the !otential for signification# Such a matrix !ro%ides a useful frame"ork for the systematic analysis of texts& roadens the notion of "hat constitutes a sign& and reminds us that the materiality of the sign may in itself signify# /rom an ex!licitly social semiotic !ers!ecti%e& Gunther ?ress and )heo %an Leeu"en ada!t a linguistic model from Michael @alliday and insist that any semiotic system has three essential metafunctionsC the ideational metafunction < 9to re*resent4 in a referential or *seudo<referential sense4 as*ects of

the e1*eriential world outside its *articular system of si$ns9= the interpersonal metafunction < 9to *roBect the relations between the *roducer of a si$n... and the recei7er,re*roducer of that si$n9= and the textual metafunction < 9to form texts4 com*le1es of si$ns which cohere both internally and within the conte1t in and for which they were *roduced9. (Hress G 7an ;eeuwen 19924 .%<.1)

S!ecific semiotic systems are called codes#

Modality and Representation

+hilst semiotics is often encountered in the form of textual analysis& it also in%ol%es !hiloso!hical theorising on the role of signs in the construction of reality# Semiotics in%ol%es studying re!resentations and the !rocesses in%ol%ed in re!resentational !ractices& and to semioticians& (reality( al"ays in%ol%es re!resentation# )o semioticians& a defining feature of signs is that they are treated y their users as (standing for( or re!resenting other things# >onathan S"ift(s satirical account of the fictional academicians of Lagago highlights the inade*uacies of the commonsense notion that signs stand directly for !hysical things in the "orld around us# ' Scheme for entirely abolishin$ all 8ords whatsoe7er... was ur$ed as a $reat 'd7anta$e in /oint of Iealth as well as :re7ity. Jor it is *lain4 that e7ery 8ord we s*eak is in some -e$ree a -iminution of our ;un$s by "orrosion4 and conseEuently contributes to the shortnin$ of our ;i7es. 'n +1*edient was therefore offered4 that since 8ords are only Cames for Thin$s4 it would be more con7enient for all &en to carry about them4 such Thin$s as were necessary to e1*ress the *articular :usiness they are to discourse on. 'nd this n7ention would certainly ha7e taken /lace4 to the $reat +ase as well as Iealth of the SubBect4 if

the 8omen in conBunction with the Kul$ar and lliterate had not threatned to raise a )ebellion4 unless they mi$ht be allowed the ;iberty to s*eak with their Ton$ues4 after the manner of their 'ncestors= such constant irreconcilable +nemies to Science are the common /eo*le. Iowe7er4 many of the most ;earned and 8ise adhere to the Cew Scheme of e1*ressin$ themsel7es by Thin$s4 which hath only this ncon7enience attendin$ it4 that if a &an9s :usiness be 7ery $reat4 and of 7arious kinds4 he must be obli$ed in /ro*ortion to carry a $reater bundle of Thin$s u*on his :ack4 unless he can afford one or two stron$ Ser7ants to attend him. ha7e often beheld two of those Sa$es almost sinkin$ under the 8ei$ht of their /acks4 like /edlars amon$ us= who4 when they met in the Streets4 would lay down their ;oads4 o*en their Sacks4 and hold "on7ersation for an Iour to$ether= then *ut u* their m*lements4 hel* each other to resume their :urthens4 and take their ;ea7e. :ut for short "on7ersations a &an may carry m*lements in his /ockets and under his 'rms4 enou$h to su**ly him4 and in his Iouse he cannot be at a loss> Therefore the )oom where "om*any meet who *ractise this 'rt4 is full of all Thin$s ready at Iand4 reEuisite to furnish &atter for this kind of artificial "on7erse. .nother great .d%antage !ro!osed y this In%ention& "as that it "ould ser%e as a =ni%ersal Language to e understood in all ci%ili<ed Dations& "hose Goods and

=tensils are generally of the same kind& or nearly resem ling& so that their =ses might easily e com!rehended# .nd thus $m assadors "ould e *ualified to treat "ith foreign Princes or Ministers of State to "hose )ongues they "ere utter Strangers# 0>onathan S"ift L14;8F1463MC Gulliver(s Travels& Part III& (. Koyage to La!uta& Balni ar i& Luggnagg& Glu du dri and >a!an(& Cha!ter K7 )he !ro!osal y the academicians of Lagago to su stitute o Aects for "ords highlights !ro lems "ith the sim!listic notion of signs eing direct su stitutes for things# )he academicians ado!ted the !hiloso!hical stance of nai%e realism in assuming that "ords sim!ly mirror o Aects in an external "orld# )hey elie%ed that (+ords are only Dames for )hings(& a stance in%ol%ing the assum!tion that (things( necessarily exist inde!endently of language !rior to them eing (la elled( "ith "ords# .ccording to this !osition 0"hich accords "ith a still "ides!read !o!ular misconce!tion of language7 there is a one' to'one corres!ondence et"een "ord and referent 0sometimes called language'"orld isomorphism7& and language is sim!ly a nomenclature ' an item' y' item naming of things in the "orld# .s Saussure !ut it& this is (the su!erficial %ie" taken y the general !u lic( 0Saussure 1526& 18& 83; Saussure 1544& 18& 837# +ithin the lexicon of a language& it is true that most of the "ords are (lexical "ords( 0or nouns7 "hich refer to (things(& ut most of these things are a stract conce!ts rather than !hysical o Aects in the "orld# 9nly (!ro!er nouns( ha%e s!ecific referents in the e%eryday "orld& and only some of these refer to a

uni*ue entity 0e#g# Llanfair!"llg"yngyllgogerych"yrndro "llllantysiliogo gogoch ' the name of a +elsh %illage7# .s Rick .ltman notes& (. language made u! entirely of !ro!er nouns& like the one used in horse racing forms& offers significant re!resentational enefits; e%ery name clearly corres!onds to and identifies a single horse( 0.ltman 1555& 247# @o"e%er& the communicati%e function of a fully'functioning language re*uires the sco!e of reference to mo%e eyond the !articularity of the indi%idual instance# +hilst each leaf& cloud or smile is different from all others& effecti%e communication re*uires general categories or (uni%ersals(# .nyone "ho has attem!ted to communicate "ith !eo!le "ho do not share their language "ill e familiar "ith the limitations of sim!ly !ointing to things# -ou can(t !oint to (mind(& (culture( or (history(; these are not (things( at all# )he %ast maAority of lexical "ords in a language exist on a high le%el of a straction and refer to classes of things 0such as ( uildings(7 or to conce!ts 0such as (construction(7# Language de!ends on categori<ation& ut as soon as "e grou! instances into classes 0tokens into ty!es7& "e lose any one'to'one corres!ondence of "ord and thing 0if y (things( "e mean s!ecific o Aects7# /urthermore& other than lexical "ords& the remaining elements of the lexicon of a language consist of (function "ords( 0or grammatical "ords& such as (only( and (under(7 "hich do not refer to o Aects in the "orld at all# )he lexicon of a language consists of many kinds of signs other than sim!ly nouns# Clearly& language cannot e reduced to the naming of things# )he less nai%e realists might note at this !oint that "ords do not necessarily name only !hysical things "hich exist in an o Aecti%e material "orld ut may also la el imaginary things and also concepts# Peirce(s referent& for instance& is not limited to things "hich exist in the !hysical "orld ut may include non'existent o Aects and ideas# @o"e%er& as Saussure noted& the notion of "ords as la els for conce!ts (assumes that ideas exist inde!endently of "ords( 0Saussure 1526& 83; Saussure 1544& 837# and for him& (no ideas are esta lished in ad%ance### efore the introduction of linguistic structure(

0Saussure 1526& 11:; cf# 114'113& 112; Saussure 1544& 11;; cf# 118& 1;:7# It remains a rationalist and (nomenclaturist( stance on language "hen "ords are seen as (la els( for !re'existing ideas as "ell as for o Aects# It is reductionistC reducing language to the !urely referential function of naming things# +hen "e use language& its %arious kinds of signs relate to each other in com!lex "ays "hich make nonsense of the reduction of language to a nomenclature# Referentiality may e a function of language ut it is only one of its functions# /urthermore& as Ki%ien Burr !uts it& ("hate%er the nature of the HrealH "orld& "e cannot assume that the "ords in our language refer to it or descri e it( 0Burr 1553& 8:7# )he !hiloso!hically fla"ed assum!tion that it is a necessary condition of a sign that the signifier has a referent has een termed the (referential illusion( y Roland Barthes 0Barthes 15347 and the (referential fallacy( y Michael Riffaterre 0Genosko 1554& 62& 31; .llen ;:::& 1137# . radical res!onse to realists is that things do not exist inde!endently of the sign systems "hich "e use; (reality( is created y the media "hich seem sim!ly to re!resent it# Language does not sim!ly name !re'existing categories; categories do not exist in (the "orld( 0"here are the oundaries of a cloud; "hen does a smile egin,7# +e may ackno"ledge the cautionary remarks of >ohn Lyons that such an em!hasis on reality as in%aria ly !erce!tually seamless may e an exaggeration# Lyons s!eculates that (most of the !henomenal "orld& as "e !ercei%e it& is not an undifferentiated continuum( ; and our referential categories do seem to ear some relationshi! to certain features "hich seem to e inherently salient 0Lyons 1544& ;44; my emphasis; cf# ibid.& ;8:7# In su!!ort of this ca%eat& "e may note that the Gestalt !sychologists re!orted a uni%ersal human tendency to se!arate a salient figure from "hat the %ie"er relegates to the L ackMground 0see Gom rich on (the outline( in artC Gom rich 152;& ;267# @o"e%er& such o ser%ations clearly do not demonstrate that the lexical structure of language reflects the structure of an external reality# .s Saussure noted& if "ords "ere sim!ly a nomenclature for a !re'existing set of things in the

"orld& translation from one language to another "ould e easy 0Saussure 1526& 114'113; Saussure 1544& 1187 "hereas in fact languages differ in ho" they categori<e the "orld ' the signifieds in one language do not neatly corres!ond to those in another# +ithin a language& many "ords may refer to (the same thing( ut reflect different e%aluations of it 0one !erson(s (ho%el( is another !erson(s (home(7# /urthermore& "hat is signified y a "ord is su Aect to historical change# In this sense& (reality( or (the "orld( is created y the language "e useC this argument insists on the primacy of the signifier# $%en if "e do not ado!t the radical stance that (the real "orld( is a !roduct of our sign systems& "e must still ackno"ledge that there are many things in the ex!eriential "orld for "hich "e ha%e no "ords and that most "ords do not corres!ond to o Aects in the kno"n "orld at all# )hus& all "ords are (a stractions(& and there is no direct corres!ondence et"een "ords and (things( in the "orld# Saussure(s model of the sign in%ol%es no direct reference to reality outside the sign# )his "as not a (denial( of extralinguistic reality as such ut a reflection of his understanding of his o"n role as a linguist# Saussure acce!ted that in most scientific disci!lines the (o Aects of study( "ere (gi%en in ad%ance( and existed inde!endently of the o ser%er(s (!oint of %ie"(# @o"e%er& he stressed that in linguistics& y contrast& (it is the %ie"!oint ado!ted "hich creates the o Aect( 0Saussure 1526& 2; Saussure 1544& 27# +hilst such a statement might go "ithout comment in a disci!line "ith an ackno"ledged self'sufficiency 0such as mathematics7& in the context of human language one can understand ho" it might e critici<ed as an idealist model# In the Saussurean model the signified is only a mental conce!t; conce!ts are mental constructs& not (external( o Aects# @o"e%er& as Rodo"ick notes& (stressing the relation of difference or nonidentity et"een an o Aect and the form or su stance of its ex!ression need not im!ly the a sence of re!resentation( 0Rodo"ick 1554& 18;7# . conce!t may& of course& refer to something in ex!eriential reality ut the Saussurean stance is a denial of the (essentialist( argument that signifieds

are distinct& autonomous entities in an o Aecti%e "orld "hich are defina le in terms of some kind of unchanging (essence( 0Culler 1523& ;47# Saussurean semiotics asserts the non'essential nature of o Aects# >ust like signifiers& signifieds are !art of the sign system; signifieds are socially constructed# .ccording to the +horfian stance& the signified is an ar itrary !roduct of our culture(s ("ay of seeing(# )he Saussurean !ers!ecti%e (tends to re%erse the !recedence "hich a nomenclaturist accords to the "orld outside language& y !ro!osing that far from the "orld determining the order of our language& our language determines the order of the "orld( 0Sturrock 1528& 147# In contrast to the Saussurean model& Peirce(s model of the sign ex!licitly features the referent ' something eyond the sign to "hich the sign %ehicle refers 0though not necessarily a material thing7# @o"e%er& it also features the interpretant "hich leads to an (infinite series( of signs& so at the same time Peirce(s model also seems to suggest the relati%e inde!endence of signs from any referents 0Sil%erman 1526& 137# /or Peirce& reality can only e kno"n %ia signs# If re!resentations are our only access to reality& determining their accuracy is a critical issue# Peirce ado!ted from logic the notion of (modality( to refer to the truth %alue of a sign& ackno"ledging three kindsC actuality& 0logical7 necessity and 0hy!othetical7 !ossi ility 0@odge J ?ress 1522& ;87# /urthermore& his classification of signs in terms of the mode of relationshi! of the sign %ehicle to its referent reflects their modality ' their a!!arent trans!arency in relation to (reality( 0the sym olic mode& for instance& ha%ing low modality7# Peirce asserted that& logically& signification could only e%er offer a !artial truth ecause it if offered the com!lete truth it "ould destroy itself y ecoming identical "ith its o Aect 0cited in Grayson 1552& 4:7# )heorists "ho %eer to"ards the extreme !osition of !hiloso!hical idealism 0for "hom reality is !urely su Aecti%e and is constructed in our use of signs7 may see no !ro lem "ith the Saussurean model# Indeed& the Saussurean model has itself een descri ed as (idealist( 0Culler 1523& 1147# )hose dra"n to"ards !hiloso!hical realism 0for "hom a

single o Aecti%e reality exists indis!uta ly (outside( us7 "ould challenge it# .ccording to this stance& reality may e (distorted( y the media "hich "e use to a!!rehend it ut such media !lay no !art in (constructing( the "orld# $%en those "ho ado!t an intermediate constructionist 0or constructivist7 !osition ' that language and other media !lay a maAor !art in (the social construction of reality( ' may tend to o Aect to an a!!arent indifference to"ards social reality in Saussure(s model# )hose on the !olitical left in !articular "ould o Aect to its sidelining of the im!ortance of the material conditions of existence# =m erto $co !ro%ocati%ely asserts that (semiotics is in !rinci!le the disci!line studying e%erything "hich can e used in order to lie( 0$co 1548& 47# /rom the !ers!ecti%e of social semiotics the original Saussurean model is understanda ly !ro lematic# +hate%er our !hiloso!hical !ositions& in our daily eha%iour "e routinely act on the asis that some re!resentations of reality are more relia le than others# .nd "e do so in !art "ith reference to cues "ithin texts "hich semioticians 0follo"ing linguists7 call (modality markers(# Such cues refer to "hat are %ariously descri ed as the !lausi ility& relia ility& credi ility& truth& accuracy or facticity of texts "ithin a gi%en genre as re!resentations of some recogni<a le reality# Gunther ?ress and )heo %an Leeu"en ackno"ledge that ' social semiotic theory of truth cannot claim to establish the absolute truth or untruth of re*resentations. t can only show whether a $i7en 9*ro*osition9 (7isual4 7erbal or otherwise) is re*resented as true or not. Jrom the *oint of 7iew of social semiotics4 truth is a construct of semiosis4 and as such the truth of a *articular social $rou*4 arisin$ from the 7alues and beliefs of that $rou*. (Hress and 7an ;eeuwen 19924 109). /rom such a !ers!ecti%e& reality has authors; thus there are many realities rather than the single reality !osited y o Aecti%ists# )his stance is related to +horfian framings of relationshi!s et"een language and reality# Constructionists insist that realities are not limitless and uni*ue to the indi%idual as extreme su Aecti%ists "ould argue; rather& they

are the !roduct of social definitions and as such far from e*ual in status# Realities are contested& and textual re!resentations are thus (sites of struggle(# Modality refers to the reality status accorded to or claimed y a sign& text or genre# More formally& Ro ert @odge and Gunther ?ress declare that (modality refers to the status& authority and relia ility of a message& to its ontological status& or to its %alue as truth or fact( 0@odge J ?ress 1522& 1;47# In making sense of a text& its inter!reters make (modality Audgements( a out it& dra"ing on their kno"ledge of the "orld and of the medium# /or instance& they assign it to fact or fiction& actuality or acting& li%e or recorded& and they assess the !ossi ility or !lausi ility of the e%ents de!icted or the claims made in it# Clearly& the extent to "hich a text may e !ercei%ed as (real( de!ends in !art on the medium em!loyed# +riting& for instance& generally has a lo"er modality than film and tele%ision# @o"e%er& no rigid ranking of media modalities is !ossi le# >ohn ?ennedy sho"ed children a sim!le line dra"ing featuring a grou! of children sitting in a circle "ith a ga! in their midst 0?ennedy 15447# @e asked them to add to this ga! a dra"ing of their o"n& and "hen they concentrated on the central region of the dra"ing& many of them tried to !ick u! the !encil "hich "as de!icted in the to! right'hand corner of the dra"ingN Being a sor ed in the task led them to unconsciously acce!t the terms in "hich reality "as constructed "ithin the medium# )his is not likely to e a !henomenon confined to children& since "hen a sor ed in narrati%e 0in many media7 "e fre*uently fall into a (sus!ension of dis elief( "ithout com!romising our a ility to distinguish re!resentations from reality# Charles Peirce reflected that (in contem!lating a !ainting& there is a moment "hen "e lose the consciousness that it is not the thing& the distinction of the real and the co!y disa!!ears( 0Peirce 1561'32& 6#68;7#

+hilst in a conscious com!arison of a !hotogra!hic image "ith a cartoon image of the same thing the !hotogra!h is likely to e Audged as more (realistic(& the mental schemata in%ol%ed in %isual recognition may e closer to the stereoty!ical sim!licity of cartoon images than to !hotogra!hs# Peo!le can identify an image as a hand "hen it is dra"n as a cartoon more *uickly than "hen they are sho"n a !hotogra!h of a hand 0Ryan J Sch"art< 15387# )his underlines the im!ortance of !erce!tual codes in constructing reality# =m erto $co argues that through familiarity an iconic signifier can ac*uire !rimacy o%er its signified# Such a sign ecomes con%entional (ste! y ste!& the more its addressee ecomes ac*uainted "ith it# .t a certain !oint the iconic re!resentation& ho"e%er styli<ed it may e& a!!ears to e more true than the real ex!erience& and !eo!le egin to look at things through the glasses of iconic con%ention( 0$co 1548& ;:4'37# Modality cues "ithin texts include oth formal features of the medium and content features such as the follo"ing 0ty!ical high modality cues are listed here as the first in each !air7& though it is their interaction and inter!retation& of course& "hich is most im!ortant#

ormal features

(-<fl detail abstract monochrome

colou unedited

edited still

mo7i silent

audib

Content features

*ossi im*ossible im*lausible

*laus unfamiliar

famil distant in time

curre

local< distant in s*ace

"ornelius GiBsbrechts (123%)> A Cabinet of Curiosities with an Ivory Tan ard (showin$ re7erse of cu*board door) Oil on "an7as4 Statens !useum for "unst

)he media "hich are ty!ically Audged to e the most (realistic( are !hotogra!hic ' es!ecially film and tele%ision# >ames Monaco suggests that (in film& the signifier and the signified are almost identical### )he !o"er of language systems is that there is a %ery great difference et"een the signifier and the signified; the !o"er of film is that there is not( 0Monaco 1521& 1;4'27# )his is an im!ortant !art of "hat Christian Met< "as referring to "hen he descri ed the cinematic signifier as (the imaginary signifier(# In eing less reliant than "riting on sym olic signs& film& tele%ision and !hotogra!hy suggest less of an o %ious ga! et"een the signifier and its signified& "hich make them seem to offer (reflections of reality( 0e%en in that "hich is imaginary7# But !hotogra!hy does not re!roduce its o AectC it (a stracts from& and mediates& the actual(

0Burgin 152;a& 817# +hilst "e do not mistake one for the other "e do need to remind oursel%es that a !hotogra!h or a film does not sim!ly record an e%ent& ut is only one of an infinite num er of !ossi le re!resentations# .ll media texts& ho"e%er (realistic(& are re!resentations rather than sim!ly recordings or re!roductions of reality# .s the film theorist G D Rodo"ick !uts it& (Rather than re!roducing the H"orldH s!ontaneously and automatically& as the ideology of realism "ould ha%e the s!ectator elie%e& the cinematic a!!aratus al"ays o!erates selecti%ely& limiting& filtering and transforming the images that are its ra" material( 0Rodo"ick 1554& 447# )he film theorist .ndrB Ba<in refers to the (re!roducti%e fallacy( as eing that the only kind of re!resentation "hich can sho" things (as they really are( is one "hich is 0or a!!ears to e7 exactly like that "hich it re!resents in e%ery res!ect# $xce!t in the case of digitally'sourced re!roductions& texts are constructed from different materials from that "hich they re!resent& and re!resentations cannot e re!licas# /or Ba<in& aesthetic realism de!ended on a roader (truth to reality( 0Ba<in 1544& 84; Lo%ell 1526& 217# Modality Audgements in%ol%e com!arisons of textual re!resentations "ith models dra"n from the e%eryday "orld and "ith models ased on the genre; they are therefore o %iously de!endent on rele%ant ex!erience of oth the "orld and the medium# Ro ert @odge and Ga%id )ri!!(s semiotic study of Children and Television focuses on the de%elo!ment of children(s modality Audgements 0@odge J )ri!! 15287# Ien .ng 015237 argues that "atching tele%ision soa! o!eras can in%ol%e a kind of psychological or emotional realism for %ie"ers "hich exists at the connotati%e rather than the denotati%e le%el# Kie"ers find some re!resentations emotionally or !sychologically (true'to'life( 0e%en if at the denotati%e le%el the treatment may seem (unrealistic(7# I "ould argue that es!ecially "ith long'running soa!s 0"hich may ecome more (real( to their fans o%er time7 "hat "e could call generic realism is another factor# Kie"ers familiar "ith the characters and con%entions

of a !articular soa! o!era may often Audge the !rogramme largely in its o"n generic terms rather than "ith reference to some external (reality(# /or instance& is a character(s current eha%iour consistent "ith "hat "e ha%e learnt o%er time a out that character, )he soa! may e acce!ted to some extent as a "orld in its o"n right& in "hich slightly different rules may sometimes a!!ly# )his is of course the asis for "hat Coleridge called the ("illing sus!ension of dis elief( on "hich drama de!ends# Ro ert @odge and Gunther ?ress argue thatC -ifferent $enres4 whether classified by medium (e.$. comic4 cartoon4 film4 TK4 *aintin$) or by content (e.$. 8estern4 Science Jiction4 )omance4 news) establish sets of modality markers4 and an o7erall 7alue which acts as a baseline for the $enre. This baseline can be different for different kinds of 7iewer,reader4 and for different te1ts or moments within te1ts. (Iod$e G Hress 19554 1.#) +hat are recogni<ed as (realistic( styles of re!resentation reflect an aesthetic code# 9%er time& certain methods of !roduction "ithin a medium and a genre ecome naturali<ed# )he content comes to e acce!ted as a (reflection of reality(# In the case of !o!ular tele%ision and film& for instance& the use of (in%isi le editing( re!resents a "ides!read set of con%entions "hich has come to seem (natural( to most %ie"ers# In (realistic( texts "hat is foregrounded is the (content( rather than the (form( or style of !roduction# .s in the dominant mode of (scientific( discourse& the medium and codes are discounted as neutral and trans!arent and the makers of the text retreat to in%isi ility# Conse*uently& (reality( seems to !re'exist its re!resentation and to (s!eak for itself(; "hat is said thus has the aura of (truth(# >ohn )agg argues that The si$nifier is treated as if it were identical with a *re<e1istent si$nified and... the reader9s role is *urely that of a consumer... Si$nifier and si$nified a**ear not only to unite4 but the si$nifier seems to become trans*arent so that the conce*t seems to *resent itself4 and the arbitrary si$n is naturaliAed by a s*urious identity between reference and referents4 between the te1t and the world. (Ta$$ 19554 99)

@o"e%er& )agg adds that such a stance need not in%ol%e !ositing (a closed "orld of codes( 0ibid.& 1:17 or the denial of the existence of "hat is re!resented outside the !rocess "hich re!resents it 0ibid.& 1847# @e stresses (the crucial relation of meaning to *uestions of !ractice and !o"er(& arguing that (the Real is a com!lex of dominant and dominated discourses "hich gi%en texts exclude& se!arate or do not signify( 0ibid.& 1:17# )he Belgian surrealist RenB Magritte 01252'15847 !ainted La Trahison des +mages 0The Treachery of +mages7 in 1568# It de!icts a side'on %ie" of a smoker(s !i!e and the text (Ceci n(est !as une !i!e( 0()his is not a !i!e(7# )he image !ro%ided here is similar ut the text is different ' this is not a re!roduction of Magritte(s !ainting0N7# Both exam!les ' Magritte(s !ainting and this %ersion ' gi%e us !ause for thought# $ach (realistically( de!icts an o Aect "hich "e easily recogni<e# If it "ere a language lesson or a child(s (reading ook( 0the style reminds me of old'fashioned Ladybird ooks for children7& "e might ex!ect to see the "ords ()his is a !i!e(# )o de!ict a !i!e and then !ro%ide a la el "hich insists that (this is not a !i!e( initially seems !er%erse# Is it !urely irrational or is there something "hich "e can learn from this a!!arent !aradox, +hat could it mean, .s our minds struggle to find a sta le& meaningful inter!retation "e may not e too ha!!y that there is no single& (correct( ans"er to this *uestion ' although those of us "ho are relati%ely (tolerant of am iguity( may acce!t that it offers a great deal of food for thought a out le%els 0or modes7 of reality# )he indexical "ord (this( can e seen as a key to the inter!retation of this !aintingC "hat exactly does the "ord (this( refer to, .nthony +ilden suggests se%eral alternati%e inter!retationsC this ?*i*e@ is not a *i*e= this ?ima$e of a *i*e@ is not a *i*e= this ?*aintin$@ is not a *i*e= this ?sentence@ is not a *i*e= ?this@ this is not a *i*e= ?this@ is not a *i*e.

0+ilden 1524& ;437 .lthough "e ha itually relate the (meaning( of texts to the stated or inferred !ur!oses of their makers& Magritte(s o"n !ur!oses are not essential to our current concerns# It suits our !ur!oses here to suggest that the !ainting could e taken as meaning that this re!resentation 0or any re!resentation7 is not that "hich it re!resents# )hat this image of a !i!e is (only an image( and that "e can(t smoke it seems o %ious ' no ody (in their right mind( "ould e so foolish as to try to !ick it u! and use it as a functional !i!e 0although many readers "ill ha%e heard y no" of the unfortunate& deluded man "ho (mistook his "ife for a hat(7# @o"e%er& "e do ha itually refer to such realistic de!ictions in terms "hich suggest that they are nothing more nor less than "hat they de!ict# .ny re!resentation is more than merely a re!roduction of that "hich it re!resentsC it also contri utes to the construction of reality# $%en (!hotorealism( does not de!ict unmediated reality# )he most realistic re!resentation may also sym olically or meta!horically (stand for( something else entirely# /urthermore& the de!iction of a !i!e is no guarantee of the existence of a s!ecific !i!e in the "orld of "hich this is an accurate de!iction# Indeed& it seems a fairly generali<ed !i!e and could therefore e seen 0as is fre*uently true of language lessons& children(s encyclo!edia entries and so on7 as an illustration of the (conce!t( of a !i!e rather than of a s!ecific !i!e# )he la el seeks to anchor our inter!retation ' a conce!t to "hich "e "ill return later ' and yet at the same time the la el is !art of the !ainting itself rather than a title attached to the frame# Magritte(s !ainting could e seen as a kind of defamiliari<ationC "e are so used to seeing things and attaching la els to them that "e seldom look dee!er and do not see things in their s!ecificity# 9ne function of art 0and of surrealistic art in !articular7 is (to make the familiar strange( 0as the Russian formalists !ut it7# .lfred ?or<y ski 01245'153:7& the founder of a mo%ement kno"n as (General Semantics(& declared that (the ma! is not the territory( and that (the "ord is not the thing( 0?or<y ski 1566; cf# Chase 1562 and

@ayaka"a 15417# )he non'identity of sign and thing is& of course& a %ery asic Saussurean !rinci!le# @o"e%er& "hilst Saussure(s model is anti'realist& the General Semanticists ado!ted the realist stance that language comes ( et"een( us and the o Aecti%e "orld and they sought to reform our %er al eha%iour to counteract the linguistic distortion of (reality(# )hey felt that one reason for the confusion of signifiers and referential signifieds "as that "e sometimes allo" language to take us further u! the (ladder of a straction( than "e think "e are# @ere is a homely exam!le of le%els of %er al a straction in relation to a co" called (Bessie(C 11 The cow known to science ultimately consists of atoms4 electrons etc. accordin$ to *resent<day scientific inference... 11 The cow we *ercei7e is not the word but the obBect of e1*erience4 that which our ner7ous system abstracts (selects)... 11 The word 9:essie9 (cow) is the name we $i7e to the obBect of *erce*tion of le7el #. The name is not the obBect= it merely stands for the obBect and omits reference to many characteristics of the obBect. 11 The word 9cow9 stands for the characteristics we ha7e abstracted as common to cow4 cow4 cow... cow. "haracteristics *eculiar to *articular cows are left out. 11 8hen :essie is referred to as 9li7estock9 only those characteristics she has in common with *i$s4 chickens4 $oats4 etc. are referred to. 11 8hen :essie is included amon$ 9farm assets9 reference is made only to what she has in common with all other saleable items on the farm. 11 8hen :essie is referred to as an 9asset9 still more of her characteristics are left out. 11 The word 9wealth9 is an e1tremely hi$h le7el of abstraction4 omittin$ almost all reference to the characteristics of :essie. (&cHim 193#4 1#5= the ori$ins of this e1am*le are in HorAybski4 7ia Iayakawa 19.14 1#1ff) )he ladder meta!hor is consistent "ith ho" "e routinely refer to le%els of a straction ' "e talk of thinkers "ith (their heads in the clouds( and of (realists( "ith their (feet on the ground(# .s "e mo%e

u! the ladder "e mo%e from the !articular to the general& from concrete reality to a stract generali<ation# )he General Semanticists "ere of course hard'headed realists and "hat they "anted "as for !eo!le to kee! their feet firmly !lanted on the ground# In alerting language users to le%els of a straction& the General Semanticists sought to a%oid the confusion of higher logical types "ith lower logical types# (. ma!( is of a higher 0more general7 logical ty!e than (the territory(& and linguistic re!resentation in !articular lends itself to this !rocess of a straction# Clearly "e can learn more a out a !lace y %isiting it than y sim!ly looking at a ma! of it& and "e can tell more a out a !erson y meeting them than y merely looking at a !hotogra!h of them# )ranslation from lo"er le%els to higher le%els in%ol%es an ine%ita le loss of s!ecificity ' like earth eing filtered through a series of increasingly fine sie%es or like !hotoco!ies eing re!eatedly made of the (co!ies( "hich they !roduce# Being alert for the conse*uent losses& a sences or exclusions is im!ortant to the semiotician as "ell as the (general semanticist(# +hilst the logician may e a le to kee! such le%els se!arate& in most acts of communication some (sli!!age( occurs routinely& although "e are normally ca!a le of identifying "hat kind of messages "e are dealing "ith& assigning them to a!!ro!riate le%els of a straction# Semioticians o ser%e that some kind of (translation( is una%oida le in human communication# Claude LB%i'Strauss declared that (understanding consists in the reduction of one ty!e of reality to another( 0LB%i' Strauss 1581& 817# .lgirdas Greimas o ser%ed that (signification is### nothing ut### trans!osition from one le%el of language to another& from one language to a different language& and meaning is nothing ut the !ossi ility of such transcoding( 0cited in >ameson 154;& ;13';187# +hilst it can e useful to consider a straction in terms of le%els and logical ty!ing& the im!licit filter meta!hor in the General Semanticists( (ladder of a straction( is too uni'dimensional# .ny gi%en (o Aect( of !erce!tion could e categorised in a %ariety of "ays rather than in terms of a single (o Aecti%e( hierarchy# )he categories a!!lied de!end on such

factors as ex!erience& roles and !ur!oses# )his raises issues of inter!retation# /or instance& looking at an ad%ertisement featuring a "oman(s face& some %ie"ers might assume that the image stood for "omen in general& others that she re!resented a !articular ty!e& role or grou!& and yet others might recognise her as a !articular indi%idual# ?no"ing the a!!ro!riate le%el of a straction in relation to inter!reting such an image "ould de!end !rimarily on familiarity "ith the rele%ant cultural codes# )he General Semanticists set themsel%es the thera!eutic goal of (!urifying( language in order to make its relationshi! to reality more (trans!arent(& and from such roots s!rang !roAects such as the de%elo!ment of (Basic $nglish( 09gden 156:7# +hate%er reser%ations "e may ha%e a out such goals& ?or<y ski(s !o!ulari<ation of the !rinci!le of ar itrariness could e seen as a useful correcti%e to some of our ha its of mind# .s a ca%eat ?or<y ski(s a!horism seems unnecessaryC "e all kno" that the "ord (dog( cannot ark or ite& ut in some circumstances "e do eha%e as if certain signifiers are inse!ara le from "hat they stand for# (Commonsense( still leads us routinely to identify sign and thing& re!resentation "ith "hat it re!resents# )erence @a"kes notes that (Saussure !oints out that nati%e s!eakers tend to assume a necessary HfitnessH& an un*uestiona le HidentityH et"een signifier and signified& et"een Hthe sound imageH made y the "ord HtreeH and the conce!t of an actual tree# )his assum!tion is the asis of language(s anaesthetic function( 0@a"kes 1544& 4:7# In his massi%ely influential ook The +nterpretation of /reams& Sigmund /reud argued that (dream'content is& as it "ere& !resented in hierogly!hics& "hose sym ols must e translated### It "ould of course e incorrect to read these sym ols in accordance "ith their %alues as !ictures& instead of in accordance "ith their meaning as sym ols( 0/reud 1562& 6157# @e also o ser%ed that ("ords are often treated in dreams as things( 0ibid.& 66:7# Magritte !layed "ith our ha it of identitifying the signifier "ith the signified in a series of dra"ings and !aintings in "hich o Aects are de!icted "ith %er al la els "hich (don(t elong to them(# In his oil'!ainting entitled The

+nterpretation of /reams "e are confronted "ith images of six familiar o Aects together "ith %er al la els# Such arrangements are familiar& !articularly in the language'learning context suggested y the lack oard'like ackground# @o"e%er& "e *uickly reali<e that the "ords do not match the images under "hich they a!!ear# If "e then rearrange them in our minds& "e find that the la els do not corres!ond to any of the images# )he relation et"een the image of an o Aect and the %er al la el attached to it is thus !resented as ar itrary# )he confusion of the re!resentation "ith the thing re!resented is a feature of schi<o!hrenia and !sychosis 0+ilden 1524& ;:17# (In order to a le to o!erate "ith sym ols it is necessary first of all to e a le to distinguish et"een the sign and the thing it signifies( 0Leach 154:& 467# @o"e%er& the confusion of (le%els of reality( is also a normal feature of an early !hase of cogniti%e de%elo!ment in childhood# >erome Bruner o ser%ed that for !re'school children thought and the o Aect of thought seem to e the same thing& ut that during schooling one comes to se!arate "ord and thing 0Bruner 15887# )he su stitution of a sign for its referent 0initially in the form of gestures and imitati%e sounds7 constitutes a crucial !hase in the infant(s ac*uisition of language# )he child *uickly disco%ers the a!!arently magical !o"er of "ords for referring to things in their a sence ' this !ro!erty of displacement eing a key (design feature( of language 0Piaget 1541& 84; @ockett 1532; @ockett 158:; @ockett 15837# @elen ?eller& "ho ecame lind and deaf at the age of eighteen months& "as gradually taught to s!eak y her nurse 0?eller 15437# .t the age of nine "hilst !laying "ith "ater she felt "ith her hand the motions of the nurse(s throat and mouth %i rating the "ord ("ater(# In a sudden flash of re%elation she cried out "ords to the effect that (e%erything has a nameN(# It is hardly sur!rising that e%en in middle childhood children sometimes a!!ear to ha%e difficulty in se!arating "ords from "hat they re!resent# Piaget illustrates the (nominal realism( of young children in an inter%ie" "ith a child aged nine'and'a'halfC L"ould the sun ha7e been called 9moon9 and the moon 9sun9D < #$o%# 98hy notD9 < #&ecause the sun

shines brighter than the moon%%%# 9:ut if e7eryone had called the sun 9moon94 and the moon 9sun94 would we ha7e known it was wron$D9 < #'es( because the sun is always bigger( it always stays li e it is and so does the moon%# 96es4 but the sun isn9t chan$ed4 only its name. "ould it ha7e been called... etc.D9 < #$o%%% &ecause the moon rises in the evening( and the sun in the day%# (/ia$et 19#9> 51<#) )hus for the child& "ords do not seem at all ar itrary# Similarly& Syl%ia Scri ner and Michael Cole found that unschooled Kai !eo!le in Li eria felt that the names of sun and moon could not e changed& one of them ex!ressing the %ie" that these "ere God' gi%en names 0Scri ner J Cole 1521& 1417# )he anthro!ologist Claude Le%y'Bruhl claimed that !eo!le in (!rimiti%e( cultures had difficulty in distinguishing et"een names and the things to "hich they referred& regarding such signifiers as as an intrinsic !art of their signifieds 0cited in 9lson 1554& ;27# )he fear of (gra%en images( "ithin the >udeo'Christian tradition and also magical !ractices and eliefs such as Koodoo are clearly related to such a !henomenon# $m!hasi<ing the e!istemological significance of "riting& Ga%id 9lson argues that the in%ention 0around 4::: years ago7 of (syntactic scri!ts( 0"hich su!erceded the use of tokens7 ena led referential "ords to e distinguished more easily from their referents& language to e seen as more than !urely referential& and "ords to e seen as 0linguistic7 entities in their o"n right# @e suggests that such scri!ts marked the end of ("ord magic( since referential "ords came to e seen as re!resentations rather than as instrinsic !ro!erties or !arts of their referents# @o"e%er& in the Middle .ges "ords and images "ere still seen as ha%ing a natural connection to things 0"hich had (true names( gi%en y .dam at the Creation7# +ords "ere seen as the names of things rather than as re!resentations# .s Michel /oucault 015;8'247 has sho"n& only in the early modern !eriod did scholars come to see "ords and other signifiers as re!resentations "hich "ere su Aect to con%entions rather than as co!ies 0/oucault 154:7# By the se%enteenth century clear distinctions "ere eing made et"een

re!resentations 0signifiers7& ideas 0signifieds7 and things 0referents7# Scholars no" regarded signifiers as referring to ideas rather than directly to things# Re!resentations "ere con%entionali<ed constructions "hich "ere relati%ely inde!endent oth of "hat they re!resented and of their authors; kno"ledge in%ol%ed mani!ulating such signs# 9lson notes that once such distinctions are made& the "ay is o!en to making modality Audgements a out the status of re!resentations ' such as their !ercei%ed truth or accuracy 09lson 1554& 82'42& 183'182& ;45' ;2:7# +hilst the se%enteenth century shift in attitudes to"ards signs "as !art of a search for (neutrality(& (o Aecti%ity( and (truth(& in more recent times& of course& "e ha%e come to recogni<e that (there is no re!resentation "ithout intention and inter!retation( 09lson 1554& 1547# It is said that someone once asked an astronomer ho" he had disco%ered the name of a !re%iously unkno"n starN So!histicated literates are a le to Aoke a out the notion that names ( elong( to things# In one of .ldous @uxley(s no%els an old farm"orker !oints out his !igsC (HLook at them& sir&( he said& "ith a motion of his hand to"ards the "allo"ing s"ine# (Rightly is they called !igs( 0Chrome 0ellow& Cha!ter 37# Literate adults may not often seem to e !rey to this sort of nominal realism# @o"e%er& certain signifiers ecome regarded y some as far from (ar itrary(& ac*uiring almost magical !o"er ' as in relation to (gra!hic( s"earing and issues of !reAudice ' highlighting the !oint that signifiers are not socially ar itrary# Children are Aust as a"are of thisC many are far from con%inced y adult ad%ice that (sticks and stones may reak my ones& ut names can ne%er hurt me(# By adding his o"n la el to an ad%ertisement& )homas Streeter at the =ni%ersity of Kermont alerts us to the "ay in "hich referents can e redefined y the skilful use of %er al anchors# So reminding oursel%es that (the "ord is not the thing( may e more useful than it might at first seem to e#

)he literary theorist Catherine Belsey argues that ;an$ua$e is experienced as a nomenclature because its e1istence *recedes our Lunderstandin$L of the world. 8ords seem to be symbols for thin$s because thin$s are inconcei7able outside the system of differences which constitutes the lan$ua$e. Similarly4 these 7ery thin$s seem to be re*resented in the mind4 in an autonomous realm of thou$ht4 because thou$ht is in essence symbolic4 de*endent on the differences brou$ht about by the symbolic order. 'nd so lan$ua$e is 9o7erlooked94 su**ressed in fa7our of a Euest for meanin$ in e1*erience and,or in the mind. The world of thin$s and subBecti7ity then become the twin $uarantors of truth. (:elsey 195%4 .2) @amlet refers toC (the !ur!ose of !laying& "hose end& oth at the first and no"& "as and is& to hold& as (t"ere& the mirror u! to nature( 0Shakes!eare& "amlet& III& ii7& and eing (true'to'life( is !ro a ly still a key criterion in Audgements of literary "orth# @o"e%er& Belsey commentsC The claim that a literary form reflects the world is sim*ly tautolo$ical. f by 9the world9 we understand the world we e1*erience4 the world differentiated by lan$ua$e4 then the claim that realism reflects the world means that realism reflects the world constructed in lan$ua$e. This is a tautolo$y. f discourses articulate conce*ts throu$h a system of si$ns which si$nify by means of their relationshi* to each other rather than to entities in the world4 and if literature is a si$nifyin$ *ractice4 all it can reflect is the order inscribed in *articular discourses4 not the nature of the world. (ibid%) )he medium of language comes to ac*uire the illusion of (trans!arency(C this feature of the medium tends to lind its users to the !art it !lays in constructing their ex!eriential "orlds# (Realistic( texts reflect a mimetic !ur!ose in re!resentation ' seeking to imitate so closely that "hich they de!ict that they may e ex!erienced as %irtually identical 0and thus unmediated7# 9 %iously& !urely %er al signifiers cannot e mistaken for their real "orld referents# +hilst it is relati%ely easy for us to regard "ords as con%entional sym ols& it is more difficult to recogni<e the con%entionality of images "hich resem le their

signifieds# -et e%en an image is not "hat it re!resents ' the !resence of an image marks the a sence of its referent# )he difference et"een signifier and signified is fundamental# De%ertheless& "hen the signifiers are ex!erienced as highly (realistic( ' as in the case of !hotogra!hy and film ' it is !articularly easy to sli! into regarding them as identical "ith their signifieds# In contrast e%en to realistic !ainting and dra"ing& !hotogra!hs seem far less o %iously (authored( y a human eing# >ust as (the "ord is not the thing( and (the ma! is not the territory( nor is a !hotogra!h or tele%ision ne"s footage that "hich it de!icts# -et in the (commonsense( attitude of e%eryday life "e routinely treat high modality signifiers in this "ay# Indeed& many realistic filmic narrati%es and documentaries seem to in%ite this confusion of re!resentation "ith reality 0Dichols 1521& ;17# )hus tele%ision is fre*uently descri ed as a ("indo" on the "orld( and "e usually assume that (the camera ne%er lies(# +e kno" of course that (the dog in the film can ark ut it cannot ite( 0@all 152:& 1617 0though& "hen (a sor ed(& "e may (sus!end dis elief( in the context of "hat "e kno" to e enacted drama7# @o"e%er& "e are fre*uently inclined to acce!t (the e%idence of our o"n eyes( e%en "hen e%ents are mediated y the cameras of Aournalists# @ighly (realistic( re!resentations in any medium al"ays in%ol%e a !oint'of'%ie"# Re!resentations "hich claim to e (real( deny the una%oida le difference et"een ma! and territory# Le"is Carroll satiri<ed the logical conse*uences of neglecting the im!ortance of this differenceC 9That9s another thin$ we97e learned from your Cation49 said &ein Ierr4 9ma*<makin$. :ut we97e carried it much further than you. 8hat do you consider the largest ma* that would be really usefulD9 (. out six inches to the mile#( (9nly six inchesN( exclaimed Mein @err# (+e %ery soon got to six yards to the mile# )hen "e tried a hundred yards to the mile# .nd then came the grandest idea of allN +e actually made a ma! of the country& on the scale of a mile to the mile(

(@a%e you used it much,( I en*uired# (It has ne%er een s!read out& yet&( said Mein @errC (the farmers o AectedC they said it "ould co%er the "hole country& and shut out the sunlightN So "e no" use the country itself& as its o"n ma!& and I assure you it does nearly as "ell#( 0Le"is Carroll& 1ylvie and 2runo Concluded& Cha!ter 117 In the sense that there is al"ays an una%oida le difference et"een the re!resented and its re!resentation& (the camera al"ays lies(# +e do not need to ado!t the (scientific( realism of the so'called General Semanticists concerning the (distortion of reality( y our signifying systems& ut may ackno"ledge instead that reality does not exist inde!endently of signs& turning our critical attention to the issue of whose realities are !ri%ileged in !articular re!resentations ' a !ers!ecti%e "hich& a%oiding a retreat to su Aecti%ism& !ays due tri ute to the une*ual distri ution of !o"er in the social "orld# +hilst Saussurean semioticians 0"ith language as their model7 ha%e em!hasi<ed the ar itrary relationshi! of the signifier to the signified& some su se*uent theorists ha%e stressed (the !rimacy of the signifier( ' >ac*ues Lacan e%en !raised Le"is Carroll(s @um!ty Gum!ty as (the master of the signifier( for his declaration that ("hen + use a "ord& it means Aust "hat I choose it to mean ' neither more nor less(# Many !ostmodernist theorists !ostulate a com!lete disconnection of the signifier and the signified# .n (em!ty( or (floating signifier( is %ariously defined as a signifier "ith a %ague& highly %aria le& uns!ecifia le or non'existent signified# Such signifiers mean different things to different !eo!leC they may stand for many or e%en any signifieds; they may mean "hate%er their inter!reters "ant them to mean# In such a state of radical disconnection et"een signifier and signified& (a sign only means that it means( 0Goldman J Pa!son 1554& 3:7# Such a disconnection is !erha!s clearest in literary and aesthetic texts "hich foreground the act and form of ex!ression and undermine any sense of a (natural( or (trans!arent( connection et"een a signifier and a

referent# @o"e%er& >onathan Culler suggests that to refer to an (em!ty signifier( is an im!licit acce!tance of its status as a signifier and is thus (to correlate it "ith a signified( e%en if this is not kno"n; (the most radical !lay of the signifier still re*uires and "orks through the !ositing of signifieds( 0Culler 1523& 1137# Shakes!eare famously referred to (a tale told y an idiot& full of sound and fury& signifying nothing( 0Macbeth V& iii7# )he notion of the (floating signifier( can e found around the year 153: in LB%i'Strauss 0see Lechte 1554& ;8'4& 84& 467# Roland Barthes referred s!ecifically to non'linguistic signs as eing so o!en to inter!retation that they constituted a (floating chain of signifieds( 0Barthes 1544& 657# )he first ex!licit reference to an (em!ty signifier( of "hich I am a"are is that of Barthes in his essay (Myth )oday( 0Barthes 1534; cf# Culler 1543& 157# Barthes defines an em!ty signifier as one "ith no definite signified# )here are some similarities "ith the linguistic conce!t of an (em!ty category( 0Lechte 1554& 847 and "ith @Aelmsle%(s figurae or non' signifying sign elements 0ibid.& 164; see .rticulation7# +hereas Saussure sa" the signifier and the signified 0ho"e%er ar itrary their relationshi!7 as eing as inse!ara le as the t"o sides of a !iece of !a!er& !oststructuralists ha%e reAected the sta le and !redicta le relationshi! em edded in his model# )he /rench !sychoanalyst >ac*ues Lacan "rote of (the incessant sliding of the signified under the signifier( 0Lacan 1544& 1347 ' he argued that there could e no anchoring of !articular signifiers to !articular signifieds ' although this in itself is hardly contentious in the context of !sychoanalysis# >ac*ues Gerrida refers also to the (free!lay( of signifiersC they are not fixed to their signifieds ut !oint eyond themsel%es to other signifiers in an (indefinite referral of signifier to signified( 0Gerrida 1542& ;37# @e cham!ioned the (deconstruction( of "estern semiotic systems& denying that there "ere any ultimate determina le meanings# +hilst for Saussure the meaning of signs deri%es from ho" they differ from each other& Gerrida coined the term diff3rance to allude also to the "ay in "hich meaning is endlessly deferred# )here is no (transcendent signified( 0Gerrida 1542& ;42';2:; Gerrida 1548& ;:7#

)hese notions "ere antici!ated y Peirce in his %ersion of (unlimited semiosis(& although he em!hasi<ed that in !ractice this !otentially endless !rocess is ine%ita ly cut short y the !ractical constraints of e%eryday life 0Gallie 153;& 1;87# =nlike Peirce& !ostmodernist theories grant no access to any reality outside signification# /or Gerrida& (il n(y a riens hors du texte( 0(there is nothing outside the text(7 ' although this assertion need not necessarily e taken (literally( 0Gerrida 1548& 132& 1867# /or materialist marxists and realists& !ostmodernist idealism is intolera leC (signs cannot e !ermitted to s"allo" u! their referents in a ne%er'ending chain of signification& in "hich one sign al"ays !oints on to another& and the circle is ne%er roken y the intrusion of that to "hich the sign refers( 0Lo%ell 1526& 187# Some theorists note that an em!hasis on the una%oida ility of signification does not necessitate denying any external reality# Ga%id Sless comments that (I am not suggesting that the only things in the uni%erse are signs or texts& or that "ithout signs nothing could exist# @o"e%er& I am arguing that without signs nothing is conceivable( 0Sless 1528& 1387# +e may note in !assing that since the !hrase (the em!ty 0or free'floating7 signifier( has ecome something of an academic (sound' ite( the term itself is ironically in danger of eing an em!ty signifier# )he notion of reality as degenerati%e is found in the Romantic mythology of a !rimal state of unmediatedness 0referring to children efore language or human eings efore )he /all7 0Chandler 1553& 61';7# In his ook The +mage& Ganiel Boorstin charted the rise of "hat he called (!seudo'e%ents( ' e%ents "hich are staged for the mass media to re!ort 0Boorstin 15817# @o"e%er& any (e%ent( is a social construction ' ounded (e%ents( ha%e no o Aecti%e existence& and all ne"s items are (stories( 0Galtung J Ruge 15217# +e might !osit three key historical shifts in re!resentational !aradigms in relation to Peirce(s differential framing of the referential status of signsC an indexical *hase < the si$nifier and the referent are re$arded as directly connected=

an iconic *hase < the si$nifier is not re$arded as *art of the referent but as de*ictin$ it trans*arently= a symbolic *hase < the si$nifier is re$arded as arbitrary and as referrin$ only to other si$ns.

Such a schemati<ation ears some similarity to that of the !ostmodernist >ean Baudrillard# Baudrillard inter!rets many re!resentations as a means of concealing the a sence of reality; he calls such re!resentations (simulacra( 0or co!ies "ithout originals7 0Baudrillard 15247# @e sees a degenerati%e e%olution in modes of re!resentation in "hich signs are increasingly em!ty of meaningC These would be the successi7e *hases of the ima$e> 1. t is the reflection of a basic reality. #. t masks and *er7erts a basic reality. (. t masks the absence of a basic reality. .. t bears no relation to any reality whate7er> it is its own *ure simulacrum. (:audrillard 19554 13%) Baudrillard argues that "hen s!eech and "riting "ere created& signs "ere in%ented to !oint to material or social reality& ut the ond et"een signifier and signified ecame eroded# .s ad%ertising& !ro!aganda and commodification set in& the sign egan to hide ( asic reality(# In the !ostmodern age of (hy!er'reality( in "hich "hat are only illusions in the media of communication seem %ery real& signs hide the a sence of reality and only !retend to mean something# /or Baudrillard& simulacra ' the signs "hich characteri<e late ca!italism ' come in three formsC counterfeit 0imitation7 ' "hen there "as still a direct link et"een signifiers and their signifieds; production 0illusion7 ' "hen there "as an indirect link et"een signifier and signified; and simulation 0fake7 ' "hen signifiers came to stand in relation only to other signifiers and not in relation to any fixed external reality# It is hardly sur!rising that Gouglas ?ellner has critici<ed Baudrillard as a (semiological idealist( "ho ignores the materiality of sign !roduction 0cited in Stam ;:::& 6:87# Baudrillard(s claim that the Gulf +ar ne%er ha!!ened is certainly !ro%ocati%e 0Baudrillard 15537#

Such !ers!ecti%es& of course& eg the fundamental *uestion& (+hat is HrealH,( )he semiotic stance "hich !ro lemati<es (reality( and em!hasi<es mediation and con%ention is sometimes critici<ed as extreme (cultural relati%ism( y those "ho %eer to"ards realism ' such critics often o Aect to an a!!arent sidelining of referential concerns such as (accuracy( 0e#g# Gom rich 152;& 122& ;45& ;287# @o"e%er& e%en !hiloso!hical realists "ould acce!t that much of our kno"ledge of the "orld is indirect; "e ex!erience many things !rimarily 0or e%en solely7 as they are re!resented to us "ithin our media and communication technologies# Since re!resentations cannot e identical co!ies of "hat they re!resent& they can ne%er e neutral and trans!arent ut are instead constituti%e of reality# .s >udith Butler !uts it& "e need to ask& (+hat does trans!arency kee! o scure,( 0Butler 1555& xix7# Semiotics hel!s us to not to take re!resentations for granted as (reflections of reality(& ena ling us to take them a!art and consider "hose realities they re!resent#