Introducing Semiotics E-Book

Paul Cobley

• Herausgeber: Icon Books
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Serie: Graphic Guides
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2014

Seitenzahl: 86

Beschreibung

"Introducing Semiotics" outlines the development of sign study from its classical precursors to contemporary post-structuralism. Through Paul Cobley's incisive text and Litza Jansz's brilliant illustrations, it identifies the key semioticians and their work and explains the simple concepts behind difficult terms. For anybody who wishes to know why signs are crucial to human existence and how we can begin to study systems of signification, this book is the place to start.

Leseprobe

Published by Icon Books Ltd, Omnibus Business Centre, 39-41 North Road, London N7 9DPEmail: [email protected]

ISBN: 978-184831-185-5

Text copyright © 2012 Icon Books Ltd

Illustrations copyright © 2012 Icon Books Ltd

The author and illustrator has asserted their moral rights

Originating editor: Richard Appignanesi

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

The Pre-History of Semiotics

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914)

Saussure and Semiology

The Structure of Myth

Structure and Mythemes

Structuralism

Post-structuralism

American Semiotics

Soviet Semiotics

Roman Jakobson, the Prague School and Beyond

Limiting Semiosis

The Present

Social Semiotics

Semiotic Solutions

Further Reading

About the Author

Index

If you go to the right cocktail parties, or hang around the foyers of the right cinemas, or read the right Sunday colour supplements, or watch the right late night arts programmes on TV, then you will know that “semiotics” is a valuable buzzword.

YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND SEMIOTICS TO UNDERSTAND CONTEMPORARY CULTURE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

The Pre-History of Semiotics

Early precursors of semiotics include Plato (c. 428–348 BCE*) whose Cratylus ponders the origin of language; and Aristotle (384–322 BCE) who considers nouns in his Poetics and On Interpretation.

The word “semiotics” comes from the Greek root, seme, as in semeiotikos, an interpreter of signs. Semiotics as a discipline is simply the analysis of signs or the study of the functioning of sign systems.

The idea that sign systems are of great consequence is easy enough to grasp; yet the recognition of the need to study sign systems is very much a modern phenomenon.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CRIES OF ANIMALS AND THE SPEECH OF HUMANS. IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL SIGNS AND CONVENTIONAL SIGNS.

One of the most notable debates on signs in the Ancient world took place between the Stoics and the Epicureans (around 300 BCE in Athens).

The crux of the matter concerned the difference between “natural signs” (freely occurring throughout nature) and “conventional” signs (those designed precisely for the purpose of communication).

For the Stoics especially, the quintessential sign was what we know as the medical symptom.

LOOK. HIS COUNTENANCE IS FLUSHED. I THINK HE HAS A FEVER. IT’S A SIGN!

The symptom remained the model sign for the Classical era.

The major foundation for the Western interrogation of signs was laid in the Middle Ages with the teachings of St. Augustine (354–430).

Augustine developed his theory of signa data – conventional signs. Contrary to Classical commentators, he promoted such signs as the proper objects of philosophical scrutiny.

GOD. GOD. I WONDER WHAT MADE ME SAY THAT?

He also served to narrow the focus of sign study by pronouncing on the way in which words seem to be the correlates of “mental words”.

Augustine’s narrowing of the focus was to have a serious impact on subsequent sign study.

Other scholars, such as the English Franciscan, William of Ockham (c. 1285–1349) exacerbated this version of the sign.

THE MAIN CATEGORIZATION OF SIGNS CONCERNS THOSE THAT ARE MENTAL AND PRIVATE, AND THOSE THAT ARE SPOKEN/WRITTEN IN ORDER, TO BE MADE PUBLIC. I SAW IN THE EXAMINATION OF SIGNIFYING PROCESSES A BASIS FOR A NEW LOGIC.

Although these figures in European philosophy are in some senses proto-semioticians, it is not until the 20th century that a full-blown semiotic awareness appears, under the auspices of two founding fathers.

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)AT THIS STAGE I WAS MORE INTERESTED IN SPECIFIC LANGUAGES IN HISTORY RATHER THAN A GENERAL LINGUISTICS.

In 1906 the University of Geneva, by fluke, provided the catalyst for him to produce a landmark in linguistics and, subsequently, semiotics.

Saussure was assigned the task of teaching a course in general linguistics (1906–11), a task he had not previously undertaken, and dealing with a topic upon which he would not publish in his lifetime.

Nevertheless, when Saussure died in 1913, his students and colleagues thought the course was so innovative that they reassembled it from their preserved notes and published it in 1916 as the Cours de linguistique générale.

SAUSSURE’S APPROACH TO LANGUAGE DIFFERS SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THAT WHICH 19TH CENTURY PHILOLOGISTS HAVE OFFERED US. PSST! CAN I BORROW YOUR NOTES?

In opposition to a “historical” – diachronic – linguistics which looks at the changes which take place over time in specific languages, Saussure pursued a synchronic linguistics. He presented an analysis of the state of language in general, an understanding of the conditions for existence of any language.

The Cours focussed on the nature of the linguistic sign, and Saussure made a number of crucial points which are integral to any understanding of the European study of sign systems.

Saussure defined the linguistic sign as a two-sided entity, a dyad. One side of the sign was what he called the signifier. A signifier is the thoroughly material aspect of a sign: if one feels one’s vocal cords when speaking, it is clear that sounds are made from vibrations (which are undoubtedly material in nature). Saussure described the verbal signifier as a “sound image”.

DAMN! I’VE GOT A BIT OF SIGNIFIER ON MY HAND

Inseparable from the signifier in any sign – and, indeed, engendered by the signifier – is what Saussure calls the signified.

This is a mental concept.

If we take the word “dog” in English (made up of the signifiers /d/, /o/ and /g/), what is engendered for the hearer is not the “real” dog but a mental concept of “dogness”:

CANINE, QUADRUPED, BARKS, HAS SHARP TEETH, WAGGLY TAIL, BURIES BONES, EATS BISCUITS, HOWLS, FETCHES STICKS, GROWLS, URINATES ON LAMP-POSTS

THE CONCEPT IS GIVEN PRIMACY IN SAUSSURE’S SCHEMA

The inseparability of the signified (mental concept) and the signifier (material aspect) leads Saussure to offer the following diagram:

Clearly, Saussure believes that the process of communication through language involves the transfer of the contents of minds:

The signs which make up the code of the circuit between the two individuals “unlock” the contents of the brain of each.

It is this combination of the contents of mind with a special kind of sign code which encourages Saussure to posit a new science.

Central to Saussure’s understanding of the linguistic sign is the arbitrary nature of the bond between signifier and signified.

The mental concept of a dog need not necessarily be engendered by the signifier which consists of the sounds /d/, /o/ and /g/. In fact, for French people the concept is provoked by the signifier “chien”, while for Germans, the signifier “hund” does the same job.

For English speakers, the signifier “dog” could, if enough people agreed to it, be replaced by “woofer”, or even “blongo” or “glak”.

That is to say, there is no natural reason why the signifier “dog” should engender the signified. The connection between the two is arbitrary.

A SCIENCE THAT STUDIES THE LIFE OF SIGNS WITHIN SOCIETY IS CONCEIVABLE; IT WOULD BE A PART OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND CONSEQUENTLY OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY; I SHALL CALL IT SEMIOLOGY.

Saussure uses the term semiology as opposed to semiotics. The former word will become associated with the European school of sign study, while the latter will be primarily associated with American theorists.

Later, “semiotics” will be used as the general designation for the analysis of sign systems.

The only reason that the signifier does entail the signified is because there is a conventional relationship at play.

Agreed rules govern the relationship (and these are in action in any speech community).

But if the sign does not contain a “natural” relationship which signifies, then how is it that signs function?

For Saussure, the sign signifies by virtue of its difference from other signs. And it is this difference which gives rise to the possibility of a speech community.

LANGUAGE IS NOT COMPLETE IN ANY SPEAKER, IT EXISTS PERFECTLY ONLY WITHIN A COLLECTIVITY.

He describes the way in which the general phenomenon of language (in French, langage) is made up of two factors:

Langue can be thought of as a communal cupboard, housing all the possible different signs which might be pulled out and utilized in the construction of an instance of parole.

Clearly, the fact that language is a system (langue) used by all, means that it is also a social phenomenon through and through.

But note also that the system is abstract – like a successful game of chess, there is rarely the need to stop and consult a rule-book to check if a move (or an utterance) is legitimate. The rules are known without necessarily needing to be continually tangible.

One further structure of language which exists within Saussure’s conception of langue concerns the restrictions on combination and substitution of linguistic elements.

If we take the collection of signs “The cat sat on the mat”:

An element such as “cat” can signify because it is different from “mat”, “the”, “on”, “sat”, as well as “gibbet”, “lorry”, “pope”, “anthrax” etc., etc.

But look how it combines with other elements.

It can appear in a strict order with “the”, “sat”, “on” and “mat” to form a syntagm (a logically ordered collection of signs, e.g. a sentence, a phrase).

In this sense, then, “cat” has syntagmatic relations with those elements which can precede and succeed it in a sequence.

However, signification takes place through something more than linear combinatory relations.

What if there were choices of signs?

In this way, “cat” can be said to have paradigmatic relations (relations of substitutability) with “feline quadruped” and “moggy”.

Such paradigmatic relations must fit in with syntagmatic relations like the x and y axes on a graph.

Yet there is some flexibility, as long as the syntagmatic relations allow it; “cat”, for example, might have paradigmatic relations with its opposite, “dog”, provided that the syntagm only requires substitution of an animate noun.

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914)

During his undistinguished sojourn at Harvard, Peirce filled a summer placement at the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, an association which was to continue for thirty years, with Peirce making major contributions to geodesy and astronomy.

In spite of this, Peirce was never able to procure the stable academic life that might have enabled him to consolidate his nebulous writing.

He became separated from his wife, Zina Fay, in 1877, eventually divorcing her. In 1883 he married a French woman, Juliette Pourtalai, with whom he had been living before his divorce from Zina. Nowadays, this does not seem a big deal.

BUT ATTITUDES TO DIVORCE IN MY MILIEU WERE STRICT. THE DETAILS OF MY LIVING ARRANGEMENTS PROVIDED AMMUNITION FOR MY ENEMIES.