Semiotics for Beginners 9781874166559, 1874166552

Citation preview

s

-

B

»,

~l AL - "ll‘.

l‘l"-"

aul Cobley and Litz s

""-

'

-

Alsoavailablefromlcon

i

.

cjiaem

]~ =5

adZ1

“An ideal

“Brilliantly

introduction”.

wide-ranging”.

TheIndependent Sunday Times

“A real achievement”.

NewScientist

illustrated”. "

“Remarkably

“Clever and

effective”.

witty",

TheGuardian The Guardian Washington Post

“Serious information

=

..‘.‘oasolyx 2

rirs

The Scotsman

“Excellent... ‘iastonlshlng".

-

Ed. Supp,

verve and... Cd

b '!

purpose”.

The Guardian

“A graphic force against

fascism". "

The Observer

ol

New Scientist

“Packed with information”.

“Little short of inspired”,

“An exemplary introduction”,

“Extraordinary range of

Times Ed. Supp

material”.

New Society

“Clever... and well researched"”.

Financial Times

andLitzaJansz) ,faylCobley bjk f‘_:;# Editedby RichardApplgnaneS|; '3g 2R w"\;‘. ‘vg

xlv

L~

S

fl v

.

T

! Publlshedin 1997by IconBooksLtd.,

.R

Grange Road, Duxford,CambridgeCB2 4QF Dnstrlbuted in the UK, Europe, Canada, SouthAfricaand Asia by the Penguin Group: Penguin Books Ltd., 27 WrightsLane, London W8 5TZ A Publishedin Australiain 1997 by Allen& Unwin Pty. Ltd., Box 8500, 9 Atchison Street, St. Leonards, NSW 2065

IPO

" =y 1

The authorand artisthave their moral rights Originatingeditor:RichardAppignanesi

. é,(:

vy |

.«59.."

No partof this book may be reproducedin any form, or by any means ;v;;h%nt prior permission in writing from the publlsher "' f : }"h N. 7}4 gw |

X ISBN1 874166552 Ry fi B

St SN

R

b

Printedand bound in Great Britainby - Biddles Ltd., Guildfordand King’s Lynn

B

e 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.


SAVSSURE'S APPROACH TO LANGVAGE DIFFERS CIGNIFICANTLY

FROM

THAT WHICH 19TH CENTVURYPHILOLOGISTS

HAVE OFFERED VS.

CAN ( BORROW YOUR. NOTES?

In oppositionto a “historical”- diachronic - linguisticswhichlooksat the changes which take place over time in specific languages,

Saussure pursueda synchronic linguistics.He presentedan analysis of the stateof languagein general,an understandingof the conditions forexistenceof any language.

T The Cours focussed on the nature of the linguisticsign, and Saussure made a number of crucial points which are integral to any

understandingof the Europeanstudyof signsystems. Saussure definedthe linguisticsignas a two-sidedentity,a dyad. One side of the sign was whathe calledthe signifier. A signifieris the thoroughly material aspect of a sign: if one feels one’s vocal

cords when speaking,it is clearthatsounds are made from

-

vibrations (which are undoubtedly material in nature). Saussure

\

describedthe verbalsignifieras a “soundimage”. Alternatively,in writing. . .

NOTE - Saussure’s area of concem is the

| %k

DAMN! (VEGOT A

BITOF SIGNIFIER. ON MY HAND

| \ulu\\\.\.-

_

s

linguisticsign. In this he is followingthe traditionof theorizing about “conventional” signs.

e

B

$.|

B,

.

Inseparablefromthe signifierin any sign- and, indeed, engendered N by the signifier- is whatSaussure callsthe sigmfned Yo This is a mental concept. m *-na

R Ot

s

Jr

lo/ ‘ /d/ Ifwe takethe word “dog”in English(madeup of the sngnmers and /g/), whatis engenderedforthe heareris notthe “real”dog buta r" mentalconceptof “dogness”:

B

T e

QUADRVPED,

BARKS,HAS {HARP TEETH, WAGGLYTAIL, BURIESBONES, EATT BISCUITS,HOWLS, FETTHESSTICKS, GROWLS,VRINATES ON LAMP

The “real”dog mightbe a Great Dane, West Highland terrier,a spaniel,a lurcher, a wolfhoundetc. rather than a generaldog.

THE CONCEPTIS GIVEN PRIMACY IN

(AVSSURE'S (CHEMA

The inseparabilityof the signified \ (mentalconcept)and the signifier (materialaspect)leads Saussureto offerthe followingdiagram: "

|

1

"m \

-

Clearly,Saussure believesthatthe1”

processofcommunication throughl

language involves the transfer of the contents of minds:

" !

‘z

o‘!

wd

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

B

?

0

It is this combination of

thecontentsofmindwitha

specialkindofsigncode

whichencouragesSaussure to posit a new science.

R

Centralto Saussure’s understandingof the linguisticsign is the ,* arbitrary nature of the bond betweensignifierand signified. The mentalconceptof a dog need not necessarilybe engenderedby the signifierwhichconsistsof the sounds/d/,/o/ and /g/. In fact,for

for Germans,thesignifier“hund”doesthesamejob. yny,

YN

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

#fit

el

fl

.

'A'?C !'.l" . in S0g

-.!':....l‘A

Thatis tosay,thereis no ~ naturalreason why the signifier“dog”should r"_

~ engenderthesignified. The connectionbetween the two is arbitrary.

P BN ’Q” )

f

i

|

. “

!

:

!

THAT ASCIENCE OFSIGNS LIFE THE STUDIES WITHIN SOCIETY ISCONCEIVABLE; T WouLD BEA PARTOFSOCIAL

PEYCHOLOGYAND CONSEQUENTLY

pb .

OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY,

( SHALL CALL (T

SEMIOLOGY.

- Saussureuses the term semiologyas opposedto semiotics.The former wordwillbecome associatedwiththe European schoolof sign study,while thelatterwillbe primarilyassociatedwithAmericantheorists. ‘a Later,“semiotics”willbe used as the generaldesignationfor the analysis of signsystems.

-

“The only reason thatthe signifierdoes entailthe -signified is because there is a conventional

" relationship atplay. ."q!' H

=

Bad

B

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 osigns function?

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

LANGUAGE1§ NOT COMPLETEIN ANY SPEAKER,IT EXISTS PERFECTLY ONLY

WITHIN

A

COLLECTIVITY

Note: Thisprincipleof differencethatgives rise toa systemshould be ' rememberedwhen we go on toconsiderpost-structuralism.

umfi" DT

-

.

AR

thewayinwhichthegeneral Hedescribes

phenomenonof language(in French,

langage)ismadeupoftwofactors:

2 i

'

b

L1

parole - individualacts

ofspeech

-

B

3

N.

langue - a systemof

B

differences between

_

signs Langue can be thought IJ of as a communal cupboard, housing all

the possibledifferent w signs which mightbe pulled out and utilized in the construction ofan instance of parole.

.....

FEESNEEY

PRt

-

Clearly, thefactthatlanguage isasystem

» i

(langue) used by all, means that it is also

a socialphenomenon throughand

-

B

- e . d5

o

,E

Butnotealsothatthesystem isabstract -1 =" likea successfulgame of chess, thereis rarelythe need to stopand consulta rulebookto check ifa move (or an utterance) ISlegitimate. The rules are known without necessarily needing to be continually _ SO D08, N

tangible.

'

PO AR

e J’.,

~

o

5SlT\ ) = R AS

caLN

NS

One furtherstructureof Ianguage wnichexistswithinSaussureS

Lt conception of Jangue concerns the restrictionson combination and

elements. substitutionoflinguistic

¥"’(

... &

ofsigns“Thecatsatonthemat”:ik Ifwetakethecollection

An element such as “cat” can signify because it is differentfrom

“mat”,“the”,“on" “sat’, as wellas “gibbet”,“lorry pope" “anthrax

'. etc.etc.

.’“

e fl '-'/y?““FDL 1‘*

\'..u_"t

‘!\“‘4’&.’

e

But look how it combineswithotherelements

"’r.

%

'l

4‘ol 2 v;f +§ s

;k;

'%“_‘

‘F 3

‘p‘M

Jl

Itcan appear in a strictorderwith“the”,“sat”,“on”and “mat”to form syntagm (a logicallyorderedcollectionof signs, e.g. a sentence, a phrase). In this sense, then, “cat” has syntagmatic relations

and"\;b, whichcanprecede - withthoseelements succeed it in a sequence. }fi}

%&

‘Slb

}x

-

-

Iy o

!

%Wl

e

:

A%

B\

However,srgnlflcatlon takesplacethroughsomething ""?{' morethan linearcombinatoryrelations. ) s J\’ %1 .‘

)

"

., What iftherewerechoicesof signs?

* Tl ~In thisway, “cat”can be said to have 3 - paradigmatic relations(relationsof substitutability) with“feline Such paradigmatic

~ relationsmustfitin

withsyntagmatic;‘ relations like

the x and y axes ~ -

onagraph.

--n_.‘* il Yetthereis some flexrbrlrty

relations allow it; “cat”, for example,

mighthave paradigmaticrelationswith itsopposite,“dog”,providedthatthe N syntagm

only requires substitution of

-

an animatenoun.

S

.

Hailed as the foremost American philosopher, Charles Peirce (pronounced “purse”) was born into a well-bred academic

familyin Cambridge,Massachusetts. This was the worldof HarvardCollege,and Peirce’s contemporaries included William

James, ChaunceyWrightandOliver

Wendell Holmes, Jr.

X. |

J'\

But Peircedid not lead a model genteel academic life in which he

steadilyconstructedhis “semeiotic”. He was a difficultyouth, largely asa result of his recurrent neuralgia, a

-

disorderinvolvingacutefacialpain and reportedlymanifestingitselfin outbursts - of_tempe{an'q emotion.

E—

&

.‘

B

‘During his undistinguished sojourn at Harvard, Peirce filled a summer 1placementat the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, an associationwhich Awas to continue for thirty years, with Peirce making major contributions to

,,geodesyand astronomy. Jln spite of this, Peirce was never able to procurethe stableacademic life

hisnebulouswriting. ‘thatmighthaveenabledhimtoconsolidate

i

He became separatedfromhis wife,Zina Fay, in 1877, eventually duvorcmg her. In 1883he marrieda Frenchwoman, Juliette Pourtalai,withwhom he had been livingbeforehis

'g

-

divorcefromZina.Nowadays, thisdoes

,,&

"5, BUT ATTITVDES TO DIVORLE IN MY MILIEV

WERE STRICT.

THE DETAILS OF

‘

4 UL 4 PR, \

-

MY LIVING ARRANGEMENTY PROVIDED AMMUNITION FOR. MY ENEMIES. e

l._:'I-'....*

o f

!

P

’: o

A

{

=

N

" »

.

A

B

i

Sl |

ae

S" .I

-

Vv e ! a

LL -

Ry

At

N’

:

2

:

2.

F

.

Vo

.o

. -

A

I

0

LA

ok XTE WiY. CAr

.

,

’

" .‘ '

s Ly ) "

g

¥

'r‘

o i

X

|

o

Ao A

+ RN, P : \ » ¥4 O ' D . ‘ 31 f o) ajimgqit YR AU AP »..f' Ca O S o~ Y J: o, ¢'fi4f "?.-"

w

"

=

A FAT

v

;

Y 4

d

P

L MY -

'y 4

)

.

-

o ‘’..7

4

F

Yy

»

S

: ‘ .‘:r

Ay B8

e

A

I

y

-

=

9

& g

e

" “ UL dt

L

S

LT »

:

§e

Y »

\

5

]

u\m;:r_g

]

-

{ J

l-‘

’ .- EAlong with his ‘argumentativeness, Peirce’s unacceptable lifestyleled to

the terminationof his only

post as a university lecturer. After having appointed him to

teachlogicin 1879, the

trustees of Johns Hopkins Unlversrty initiated Peirce’s destruction.

MATTERS WORSE,

AFTER LENGTHY DISPUTESWITH THE COASTSURVEY IN

1891, | FOUND

MYSELF EVEN WITHOVUT

THIS JOB.

For the remannderof his life, in a period of American history in which the rags-torespectabilitystories of i Horatio Alger existed alongside the social

Darwinismof the

Peirce classes, established

eked out an existenceby accepting advances for popular magazine articles.

A

-

e

k

-

-

P

W

-

o

[l‘?vet Peirce leftbehind him a voluminousseriesof writings(collectedinto eight volumes by his editors from 1931-58), many of which were

unpublished.It is here thatPeirceworkedout his logicand philosophy, boundedby what he was to call“semeiotic”,his theoryof signs. Beginningwithhis 1867 paper,“On a New Listof Categories”,Peirce : spentthe restof his lifeelaboratinga triadic theoryof the sign. Although he confessed a preoccupation with the number 3, it is easy to see that the shape of Peirce’s sign makes perfect sense.

UNLIKE SAVUSSURE, WHOSESIGN (SA SELF-CONTAINED DYAD, | INSIST

OF A THAT THE SIGNCONSISTS TRIPLE RELATION...

Representamen

(the sign itself)which ha a relationto an Object, which relation entails

an Interpretant

a1

.

r

4 v

e ik

e

.”

el

'JA o“’q).

'v’ 1?-

N Gt “»s'tvr.\t tt‘:l‘:‘:

THE SIGNOR.

REPRESENTAME 1§, QUITE SIMPLY,

The Objectis thatwhichthe

Sign/Representamen standsfor- although itis slightlymorecomplicated thanthat,

an Immediate

ObjectE‘

the objectas it is representedby the sign

a Dynamic Object the objectindependentof the sign whrchleads to the productionofthe sign

o

(OMETHING WHICHSTANDS TO SOMERODY FOR.SOMETHING

IN SOMERESPECT OR.CAPACITY.

The Interpretantis the trickiestof the lot. Itis NOT th “interpreter”.Rather it is a “proper significate effect”.

!_I

Mostoftenit is thoughtof as the sign in the mind thatis the resultof an encounterwitha sign.

L

e

-;

e

-

This is a good

~starting place, althoughit is." more accurateto considerthe :

‘

:

:

J";;.

‘

Interpretantas a kind of proper “result”. | mnjht point at the sky, for instance, and rather than simply registering the

significationof sky,you willlook in the directionof the pointingfinger. Thus an lnterpretantis produced. . l‘.'

1 -

w——"'

1“

Pl

™

i

'

""‘F‘

or

Yet, likean Object,there is more than one kindof ~ Interpretant.o

5 \

,

Ny

A

At

theImm late\?? ’the “’

Py

‘

2

', '?

Interpretant

‘

jc

o

'

[the %

"

;

nal

?','.1'_Interpretant

which manifestsitself | whichis the dué’ct - | in the correct resultof the sign understandingof the | (e.g. lookingatthe sign (e.g. lookingat | sky in generalin ."1! responseto the o"" | the sky and seeing

which is the relé’tikvé%y rare resultof a sign whichfunctionsfully in every instanceof its use (e.g. looking

precisely the star

at precisely the star

thatthe fingerpoints |

pomtrng finger)

Y

=

',.,'?'

thatthe fingerpoints to and realizingthat the pointingfinger

indicatesthatthe

staris specifically Proxrma Centauri)

}

.. Whereas Saussure’ssign ”

n

needsto (signified/signifier)

combinewithothersigns to take

-

part in the flow of meaning,

Peirce’sversion of signification has an in-builtdynamism. Remember:we said thatthe Interpretantwas likea further signor “signin the mind”.As such, the Interpretanthas an importantroleto play in the " signtriad.

L

0

#_‘the mantleofa further

Sign/Representamen.

This placesit in a relationshipto a furtherObjectwhich, in turn, entailsan Interpretant, which is transformedintoa Sign/Representamenwhich is in ~relationship to a furtherObject, effectinganother Interpretant, and so on ad infinitum.

remembering this potential when we consider Derrida’s relation to semiotics.

TR

MRo

In itsguise as Interpretantit is also able to assume -

Interpretantproducing further signs is, in everyday terms, quite

familiar.We are all aware of how one signtriggers a chain of associations which eventually seem quite removed from the initial sign.

In

semiotics,

tT"T ispotentral anditisonly a

potential, simply because normal

‘practicedictatesthatwe needtogoto - work, executechores, go to sleepetc., rather than constantly produce signs

toasunllmitedsemrosns -is oftenreferred

l?b

e

.

l

'

Peirce’s ‘view of sign functioning

is clearlyquite

Note: A storyhas it thatSchubert,after playing a new piano piece, was asked by a

womanwhatit meant. Schubertsaid nothing but, in answer, returned to the piano and

complex when

played themusic again. The pure feelingof

one considers the way, in his semeiotic, in which signs necessarily_

the music - Firstness - was its point.

generatefurther signs. ,

'

R, L[ -'1

\

But the plot thickens. k E Peirce’s sign does not

functionon itsown butas -amanifestationof a general ’ phenomenon. Peirce identifiedthree categoriesof

phenomenawhichhe labelled S

W

Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness.

The realmof Firstnessis difficult to conceivebutis usuallyunderstoodin F-‘. terms of “feeling”.

Firstnesshas no relations,it is notto be thought of in opposition tothmg another

'( and rt

Is merelya “possibility”. It is like a musical note or a vague taste

..‘

or a sense of a colour.

Secondness is the realm of brute facts which arise

froma relationship.

L

It is the sense that arises when, in the process of \’

A

closing a door,itisfoundthatthedoorisstuck asthe '_‘J resultof an objectbeingin itsway. The relationis discoveredand the worldis revealedto be made up of thingsand theirco-existencewithotherthings. b

TR

R, E.

-

|

:

DR

~ Where Secondness element.

Lo T

el e

amounts to brd‘tal facts, Thirdness is the mental |

For Peirce, a Third brings a First into relation with a Second.

P

~Asintheanalogy ofgiving, AgivesBtoC,henceBbrings A andC intoa relationship. 'FE-1

» r

-1y

i

i.f.: s &_'YA. Transposed-onto Peirce’ssigntriad, the categoriesresultin thefollowing:

R = Sign/Representamen

O=0Object

| = Interpretant

(F)=Firstness

(S) = Secondness 4 (T) = Thirdness

isa First; TheSignorRepresentamen -

-

Above all, for Peirce, the crucialcategoryis Thirdness, the realmof

- general laws.

~

e

T-—

the Objectis a Second;

;

e

-

Note that this is a snapshot of the triad in the possrbrlrty of unlrmrted

S

-

semiosis. Fn |

o5

The InterpretanthererepresentsThlrdness ButtheInterpretant

becomesa Firstforthenexttriad.

T—

g

As a First, then, the Sign (or Representamen) also acts as a Third,

bringingthe nextInterpretantintoa relationshipwiththe Object,or rendering“inefficientrelationsefficient”,establishing“a habitor general rulewher"eby[signs]willacton . ) occasion”. The reason for mapping the three categories onto the triadic elements Representamen, Object, Interpretantbecomes clearer as

we considerhow Peircetriesto categorizedifferentsign types.

Note: This indicates what Peirce shares with Saussure: a

theoryof signs as a coded access toan object.

T

SN

Initially,Peirce posited 10 sign types, which he then revised in order to theorize 66 signs, before eventually coming up with the "]B troublesome figure of 59,049.

Itwould be difficultto go throughallof these; however,we can begin to look at the process by which such sign types might be generated. If the sign is a triad (Sign/Representamen, Object, Interpretant)then it has three formal aspects, of Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness - o- respectively.

Theseformalaspects, inturn,beara relation tothecategories(Firstness, Secondness

general.

-y

Thurdness) of exrstence or phenomena in

:

‘:

)

5 "

'!'Fi

k

:|

.

-

.

} -.-‘9‘..' m".ll

!!

be The interactionof formalaspectsof signs and aspectsof beingcan wv".'d'-_. F‘Jr‘: graph. sign-generating envisaged in termsof a -

The rows consist of the categories (Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness) as they relate to each element of the sign triad.

: '\’

The columns consist of the categories as they relate to being (quality, brute facts, general laws). war L

:

Thisgeneratessignsas follows: *‘

Brute facts | Law Quality Firstness | Secondness | Thirdness Representamen

Firstness

o

Object |con

rordiecs R

Interpretant

RN

Py b

Qualisign | Sinsign !;

Rheme

Index 2

Dicent

‘:

1%

Legisign Symbol

o b Argument ot

o i"| :

P-

5 A

r“‘

R

Py P

T

Y

-

.

T

S

Atthe levelof the Sign/Representamen (ie.a

First)v

a Qualisign

f’

S ¥

(a Representamen made up of a quality,

ey

| e.g. the colourgreen)

e

.!-:.:f.";:

)

.

~5

y N ‘L"h

'\

|e

3, X f-."i'?:;..g'

5«

V »u {f‘

fi:f‘yfif

%

3R

P T

tf;v

\

"er r&&"cw =% 3

h-,c-wwsfl

v

4 — a Sinsign e (a Ftepresentamen made up of an exrstnng ‘i physical reality,e.g. a road sign in a

specificstreet)

._’, fa

YAlL

Jir_vt.

‘I'_iu

{ '

.

&"!

a Legisign (a Representamen made up of a law,

.‘

e.g. the sound of the referee’swhistlein a football match)U’!fi"L

lfi-filn-. ....’

)D-‘

)

— At

the

Ievel

Of

l" .‘h ?f',‘l?-

the

Object(i.e. aSecond) i

;.r.fl?,“i";;

T

’%’.‘

LT T

oy’E' ’”;"&

:.." ‘ '

T

f

A Bt L]

J

Al S (VR

YA | "‘f\ o‘

-

.-"

oAl

i,,é"G NS SRkLT “-;'.’Wr‘}f’f: '_‘got} anIcon i £

B

LG

(where the sign relates

1oitsobjectin some

withit, resemblance

e.g. a photograph)

=

a Symbol (where the sign;,:! relates to its object

§ by means of convention alone, e.g. a word, a flag)

an Index (where the sign relates to

itsobjectin termsof causation,e.g. weathercock, medical symptom)

N

N

LR

of the

(where the sign is represented for the Interpretant as a possibility,

Interpretant

e.g. a concept)

a Dicent (where the sign is represented for the

Interpretant asa fact,j§

e.g. a descriptive statement)

an Argument

(where the

UM N

sign is represented for the Interpretantas

a reason, r

e.g.a

T

g

LW

proposition)

8

o,

P

The chiefpointto be made here is that these often

abstractsign typesprovidethe bare bones for a -larger semiotic which invokes all manner of combinations.

Here is one example of such a combination:

l’

—

A football referee shows a red card to a footballplayer who has committed a blatant professional foul. As the red card invokes rules (professional fouls are illegal and lead to penalties against the perpetrator), it is an Argument. It is also Symbolic (the red card signifies the professional foul by convention), and therefore also a

Legisign ) ((a aggenerallaw). gisign

-

-«n?

But the red card has been used by referees before, and players know this well enough.

Therefore, this

instanceoftheuse of the red card acts as a brutefact,and as such is a Dicent IndexicalSinsign(a statement,caused by the actionof the referee, of the facts of football protocol).

.

THE DICENT INDEXICAL SINSIGNISTHEREFOREA REPLICAOF THE

ARGUMENT=SYMBOLLEGISIGN. '

s. ieddSR

il

r"""’.

T

The work of Peirce and Saussure provides the most obvious : : reference point for semiotics in the twentiethcentury..". ‘ b

But there is a link »

with the past

;

that both thinkers represent. '

M r

.

- a

[ MAKE THESTRUCTURE OF

[

‘

LANGUAGE ("LANGVE') THE -, STARTING POINTFOR.ANY

|

PROJECTED STUDY OFSIGNS.

| DEVISE A SEMEIOTIC

WHICHEMBRACESBOTH"NATURAL”

AND “CONVENTIONAL” SIGNS OFALLKINDS.

T

e s

T

i

\ -

"

= )

w

o

(&) )

« c o)

o = w (7)) - —D

have their forebears, they have also spawned

successors.

8

-

01‘

Saussure and Semiology a‘.,m':

One of the most penetrating critiques of Saussure acts as evidence of the spread of his influence.

The Soviettheorist,Valentin Volosinov (1895-1936),names the school of Saussureas a key playerin Russian linguistics.However, he chides it for its “abstractobjectivism”: that is to say, he disagrees

thatlangue(used by all,yet intangible)is where we mightfindthe true social natureof communication. fi:‘"‘-

i

hM

3

)

| DEMAND THAT THE FOCVSOF LANGVAGE

STUDY SHOULD FPETHE

UTTERANCE ("PAROLE"), WHICH (€ FIXED IN A SPECIFIC SITUATION AND CHANGES AS THE SITUATION

DOES.

"-c

L._

i

B

-

=X

Itis widelybelievedthat

,

Volosinovwas actually W

: Q‘

theRussianscholar, e

.

Y

\ gy

e

Mikhail Bakhtin

(1895-1975).

‘i

AT v

b

\

This argumentis |mportant forthe developme semioticsand we willreturnto itagain.

For the European thinkersthatfollowSaussure, however,the concept of languerepresentsthe majorbreakthrough.

A Danishlinguist,Louis Hjelmslev(1899-1965),embarkedon Saussure’staskof forging“a sciencethatstudiesthe lifeof signs within society”. The crucial first move in this project involved

¢ e

R

o

the promotion of /angueto the levelof a mastersystem flp of signsthatgovernedallsign productionabove

andbeyondthatdescribed bylinguistics

ALL SIGNSARE (UBORDINATE TO A HIGHER. PRINICIPLEOF

ORGANIZATIONTHAN THAT OF THEIR. OWN LOCAL SYSTEM,

:_B Allied to this is an extension of Saussure’s

understandingof individualsign-functioning. Where Saussure’ssign (comprisingthe internal relations of signified and signifier) operates in a dimension where its job is to denote, Hjelmslev suggests that the sign also has a further dimension.

, ’

L""i

AL

ORGANIZED AND INCORPORATEDINTO THIS OTHER.DIMENSION OF THE SIGN(SA MASSOF INFORMATION WHICH COMESFROM OVUTSIDE THE SIGN(TSELF. '

Notonlydoesthesigncontaina relation betweena materialsubstance(signifier)

h 7N

&Jand

A \

>

a mental concept (signified), it also

containsa relationbetweenitselfand E

?

systems of signs outside itself.

CEE——

T e M//fi‘%‘

‘

:

v

¥

\f"’

t),,m

T

.\",,

.'u;

’&

- } h\r‘i \*

'

bg‘\,‘

v'.‘\ 4

nd

T

n”d-.: \'{ :7.\fifiv‘

i is

= P

thDMma Ifwe take a sign such as manrfest destmy". the dlmensron that Hjelmslev is describing becomes much clearer.

It is relativelyeasy to identifythe signifiersthatare in use in this sign; similarly,one can analyze the twowords in order to denotative meaningforthem work out a straightforward (e.g. that a predetermined course of events is obvious).

B ——\

S

('x

THEPHRASE HAS SOME

\

\

_ :i‘

l’

,t/ é -\

BUT ASIN THE CASEOF MANY SIGNS,THERE

S

FAIRLYSPECIFIC CONNECTTONS

SOMETHING THATTHIS \O

TOTHE TIME

KIND OFANALYSISA A

ANDmiLl EV

EEM

VSED.

"!

1":

It?

IN

What strikes the reader of these two words - if . he or she is sufficientlyversed in history - is a whole set of associations to do with American _-; expansion (the frontier,the 19th century, heroic pioneers,

' ! -

~ the railroad,theclaimingof landfromthe East to the Pacific, the removal of Native Americansl.,

y

“Manifest destiny”,coined in 1845,was a clichéused by - successive U.S. presidents in the 19th century to refer to and justify the colonization of a continent. ] I ‘l '4

The sign, then, can be said to have

~ thepowerofconnotation.

'l Like allsigns, itcan - potentially- invoke p_“_~ the actionof existingsign-systems.

T

-

=

~

»

.

ik

ASAMERICA'S

SPREADS, . [ TERRITORY

k.

-,

Connotation is by no means an unfamiliar phenomenon. o, In fact, probably one of th%

mostgiftedand entertaining analystsof connotation presentedhis most famous rnsrghts|nto I " / signs before

[ HOPE TO ACCOUNT

IN DETAILFOR.THE MYSTTIFICATION

v

WHICHTRANSFORMS PETIT-BOVRGEODIS CULTVURE INTO A UNIVERSAL NATVURE.

becoming L[ immersedin semiology.

From 1954-56, aseries F

t

8

1

of essays appearedina Frenchmagazine, Les

Lettres nouvelles. In each one

author, Roland Barthes

- (1915-80), set out to expose a

“Mythologyof the Month”,largelyby showinghow the denotationsin the signs of popular culture betray -9y - connotations which are themselves “myths” generated by the larger sign

~ systemthatmakes up society.

The book which contains these essays - appropriately entitled Mythologies and published in 1957 - presents meditationson

-

striptease,the New Citroén,thefoamthatis a productof detergents, the face of Greta Garbo, steak and chips, and so on.

In each essay, Barthestakesa seeminglyunnoticedphenomenon fromeverydaylivingand spendstimedeconstructingit, showinghow the “obvious” connotations which it carries have usually been carefully constructed.

-

q

oD -

RN

IN"THE WORLD OF HOW, | DESCRIBE WRESTUNG”

b§ " FAR.FROMBEINGA (PORT,

. WRESTLING I§A COMPLEX MADEUP OFSIGNS SPECTACLE ' RODIES OF THEWRESTLERS

ANDEXCESSIVE GESTURES.

."4‘L,7

gv 2!

77 iy

o'

, "y

s

;

Even thougheverybodyknowsthatwrestlingis “fixed”itdoes notstop people (often old ladies) gettingcarried away with certain bouts. More subtly, in “The Romans in Films”, Barthes shows that the means by which connotations of “Roman-ness” are produced in Joseph Mankiewicz's film of Julius Caesar are minute.

I

n

.

i

Apartfromthe obvious things(togas,sandals,swordséta'.)‘,“"" o Barthesnotesthatallthe charactersare wearingfringes.

e

EVEN THOSEWHOHAVE UTTLE HAIR.HAVE NOT BEEN LET - THE KING-PIN OFF FOR.ALL THAT, AND THE HAIRDRESSER. OF THE FILM - HAS STTILL MANAGED TO PRODVCEONE LAST LOCK. WHICH DULY REACHES THE TOP OF THE FOREHEAD, ONE OF THOSE ROMAN

FOREHEADS,

WHOSE SMALLNESS HAS

AT ALL TIMES INDICATED. A SPECIFIC MIXTURE OF (ELF-

" N

RIGHTEOVSNESS, VIRTUEANDCONQUEST. .

Be

™pe—

e

e

-

.

It is probably these semiotic analyses of Barthes that are the most popularly known, and which form the basis of the kind of conversations

in cinema foyersand on latenightartsprogrammesto which \Lv;e._rlnade referenceat thebeginningof thisbook. ——— Ia "1 But Barthes does much more than graftquasi-t_echnical jargon onto popular artefacts. He reads phenomena closely; and in his deconstructions he pays deliberate attentionto the complexities which oy T Tl ALG TS : ; . b INTT maintain certain constructions. 5

-

WHICH SUFFUSEOUR LIVES ARE INSIDIOVS PRECISELY PECAVSETHEY APPEAR SONATURAL. THEY CALL OVUTFOR.THE DETAILED ANALYSISWHICH SEMIOTICS CAN DELIVER..

Take Barthes'1964 essay, “The Rhetoricof the Image”. Here he analyzes an ad for Panzani pastawhichconsistsof a simple

.

photograph of some basic ingredients (tomatoes, mushrooms, peppers), some packets of pasta and some tins of sauce, hanging out of a string bag. He separates the ad into three messages:

message =~ a “linguistic”

-allthewordsinthead -

a “coded iconic” message

- the connotations(derivedfromthe

"VQ TR

W "":

Rk

#

)-"7-WG \h‘ L

#filargersignsystemofsociety)in e photograph

a “non-coded iconic” message - thedenotationsinthe photograph

T The linguistic message The key thing about this is the peculiar assonance found in the word “Panzani”. This denotes the name of the product but, coupled with

_

-

such linguisticsigns as “Lltalienne”,italso connotes the general < e idea of “Italianicity”.

Thecodediconicmessage

. .

of derivedfromthearrangement Thesearethevisualconnotations .

photographed elements.

Among theseare:m‘fl;—pfl

L|

:.

, _L!

7“

!

"

-

lm

1

(ofnatwra freshiness aswell ungredients

as,byasswelatio )

fflc[fljfi%nes )

i

a recwnfrome

market‘]‘// & a trawl (string‘ff‘fi:\ fushing net)

B "nsmlllife

-4

| Italanieity : (thetri- colovred

huesofthe

i

natwralUngredients

T

Tt

and,thepacket

W 202l= italia

- SAUCE- PARMESAN A L'ITALIENNEDE LUXE flag!

fi"'fl‘jfl e

a4 -

R

.

-

-

NN

™

-

e

. The non-coded iconic message Barthesuses thistermto referto the “literal”denotation,the recognition of identifiableobjects in the photograph, irrespective of the

largersocietalcode (or /langue).

-~Itis significant thatBarthesshouldprckthrspartrcularorder forhis 2 ey : i ‘Jh. three messagess" 2g

T

Y

-éuf

Infact,theearly1950ssawa waveof communicationwhichwouldembrace elementsof sociology,politicalscience, semiotics, biology, linguistics, literary' S

.

criticismand anthropology. This was marked especially by a

series of interdisciplinary conferences in New York and

Chicagofeaturingthe cyberneticistNorbert Wiener

(1894-1964), the

-

Mead(1901-78),thel".

-

anthropologistMarga’retJl

A

L PR

g

e ‘,."‘..’:

N

sociologist Talcott

>

Parsons (1902-79),

the literarycritic l. A. Richards, communication

‘

') ie

‘. .

theoristGregory Bateson, and others. P

et

fl .—

Butcommunication models- especially thosedevelopedin

the wakeofShannon

and Weaver - simplydid not incorporatethe flexibilityin theirlinear

‘

~

s

&

schema to deal with the

vicissitudesof semiosis.

N

-

m

B Confrontingthecomplexityof semiosis,Morrishad dividedsemiotics into three discrete areas.

The firstdealtwiththe relations betweena signand othersigns (i.e. relationsof combination)whichhe calledsyntacti

'

7

z _ e

-

V% SNl

i

u‘

T

1’

‘h‘

e

The secondconcemed relations between signs and denotata (i.e. relations of denotating) which he

calledsemanLcs "7

’\.:

- p>d

50 l‘*i‘

""

“\

A

~The third comprised

relations between signsand

s

W" " \\afl .v,‘:,*l",

interpreters

|

‘Theseareas ‘.

l

called

dissimilar from those which are-

pragmatics.

terms in contemporary

~linguistics. [ INTENDED

THETHREEFOLD DISTINCTIONTO

MORE TRAVERSE THAN THE FIELD OF ANT’HROPO(EMlOSl(

’

whichhe

are not

designated by the same

'p"

(i.e. relations ofemphasis)

Morris’student,a polymathcalled Thomas Sebeok (b.1920), a participant in the 1950s conferences, was subsequently the major force in international semi jotics. MY WORKWASTO TRANSCEND THE (TALEMATE OF

FEHAVIOVRISMAND FRVITFULLY LEAD fEMIOTICS BEYOND THE BOUNDSOF MERELY HUMAN PHENOMENA,

...Sebeok travelled to the UnitedStatesin 1937 where he attended the University of Chicago, thereafter pursuing graduate studies as a

linguistat Princeton.

o "e Sl

Sebeokis thereforeone of the many immigrantswho make up the‘ e 4 chimeraknownas “Americansemiotics”,alongwithphilosophers such as Ernst Cassirer (1874-1945)fromGermany,Rudolf Carnap

(1891-1970)fromAustria,Jacques Maritain(1882-1973)from

_Franceand the linguistRoman Jakobson (1896-1982),fromRussia.

T

AT

'.h

o

e

Since 1943, Sebeok has taught at Indiana University in Bloomington,

and it is fromthisbase thathe has tirelesslyagitatedon behalfof semiotics, editing numerous series of new titlesand neglected

masterpieces,foundingthe InternationalAssociationfor Semiotic

Studies(IASS)in1969and,fromthesamedate,actingaseditor-inchief for the eclectic internationaljournal Semiotica.

Itis largelyby dintof thisadministrativeprofilesetup by Sebeokthat the term “semiotics” has superseded “semiology” on both sides of the T‘ Fe “ > v'ivvfiq Atlanti'c. il'*:i'

T

TN \ "

. \\\\\;\\c_\-‘\'

l\

>

~

O

J

By)

‘

.

Theworkforwhich

-

Sebeokmaybe best '

‘

’

:

ey

N

'

remembered,

however,stems from his coinagein 1963

oftheterm

‘

zoosemiotics.

B

= Sebeok’slinguistictraining,farfrom confininghim to the studyof human communication, provided the impetus for non-linguistic study and a scrutiny of the animal realm.

OF GENETICS, ANIMAL

A MVUTVAL APPRECIATION

MAY LEADTO A COMMUNICATION STUDIES,AND UINGVISTICS,

AND OF THE DYNAMICSOF SEMIOSIS, FULLUNDERSTANDING [HIS MAY, IN THE LAST ANALYSIS, TURN OUT TO BE NO LE AN

mg

NCEINNTIOND

O

1 1

2AT .l"rb'c—r:*'):t'-'! i

".“5?“,’

o

.

.\ &

"

[ DEFINE MYSELF ASA

BIOLOGIT‘"MANQUE’ A¢

A WELLAS, CONCURRENTLY, g

.

DOCTRINAIRE OF SIGNS

‘MALGRELI,

However,significationis not conceived l ‘

by himas somethingthatdirects behaviourin the way that Morrishad envisaged.

-

For Sebeok, one of the chief defining characteristicsof the

AR

T

e

"zoosemiotic"__is“that, unlikethe_‘jafi_r}‘th&oposemlotic”, it is withouta I Many studies have been devoted to animal communication, especially in the post-war period, but these have often falsely posited an animal “language”.

Probablythe mostfamousstudyof animalsigns is thatof the Nobel

Prizewinner,Karlvon Frisch(1886-1982), who,inthe1920s, ‘fl observedthe “dances”of bees. )

L

| DETERMINED

THAT

CERTAIN TRA)ECTORIES nf

OF FLIGHT—ANDHAT

MOVEMENTS OF THE TAIL ON THE PART OF A

FEE RETURNING TO THE HIVE INDICATEDFOR. COMPANION PEES THE

DIRECTION AND

PROXIMITY OF A NECTAR

|;

i

W \\

g

et

O

-

O

[

———

T

Similarly, there have been studies of the diversity of birdsongs which are often found to be distinguished by regional dialects and certainly

dependonlearning."“' olL

"‘m

vl Bo

i

w

|

A

ilo™

FH

On a slightlydifferentlevel some gorillasin captlvrty have been observed to have acquired as many as 224 words in a special sign language.

-

But, as regards the question of whether animals possess a Ianguage

Sebeok steadfastlysays “No!"

The reason for this is witnessed

in the storyof the remarkable horse who seemed to share a

languagewithits human g

interlocutor.

N

e

e

e

W -

-

i

"Innumerous suchcasesofananimalresponding to human attemptsat communication - for example, doing sums by stamping a hoof repeatedly - it can be shown thatthe animal is not responding to the manifest human signs. Instead, it feeds offthe various non-verbal cues of the interlocutor,which have often been deliberately lntroduced in the service of a hoax.

Sebeok callsthiskindof

,’f.,

misconstruingof animal communication“theClever Hans Effect”,afterthe most

celebrated caseofitskind.;:‘\"“5 However, the phenomenon is not just important for its use in the sceptrcal

of "‘ ?- "y debunking (un)rntentronal

JJ‘J

I

The interestingfeatureof the Clever Hans Effectis thatforspectatorsand some human participants in such exercises - the signs that the humans receive back from the animal are not animal in origin.

Tq - iy

Effectively,the signs emanatefromthe human who providesthecues in t the firstplace. The senderthus receiveshis/herown messagebackfrom

v

iyY

form. di in distorted receiver in the receiver

THESE CASESARE

AN ILLUSTRATIONOF MY ARGUMENTTSREGARDING SIGNS, ORGANISMS

AND ENVIRONMENTT.

"’i"i}

*

=

-fl

.

B Drawingon the workofthe Estonian-bornGerman biologist,Jakob von Uexkiill (1864-1944), Sebeok describes how semiosis takes place ina significantenvironment or Umwellt. All semiosis, for Sebeok, occurs within two universal sign systems: the | p genetic and verbal codes.

The geneticcode (foundin allorganismson the planetby way of DNA and RNA), and the verbal code of all peoples (the underlying structure which

makes alllanguagespossible). organisra_anditsyn{elt Withinthisare the mutually-serving

environment). """

B -

y

o .S e

-

(or significant

»

The Umweltis the partof an environmentthatan organism“chooses”to inhabit; it is the perceptual or “subjective” universe of the organism.

4

»

BN

D

But the organism also acts as a sign of the Umwelt in that the structure of the organism will, in some sense, give clues to the nature ofits environment. Conversely, the Umwelt also shows that it is itselfa sign of the organism,

in thatitis possibleto make inferencesaboutthe organismbased on an analysisof itsenvionment. ‘m‘\.t

5..&-‘

2R,

-5

ER

208

&

Umweltand organismare broughttogether in a quasi-Peirceanway- by a third factor, in the form of a code that Sebeok, following Uexkdll, calls a ", 1 “meaning-plan”.

This code is a masterentity,in thatitis outsidethe organismproperand precedesthe orgamsm s existence.

Ifl-! ‘s_B

B

&

“ 127

I

Yet the organism enacts an ongoing process of interpretingits Umwelt, it gives birth to new organisms, which are born into a pre-existing Umwelt

“butwhichcontributeto a furtherinterpretation or chain of theongorng Umwelt. This is a very comprehensiveconceptionof semiosis:itis one thattakes in many sources and, like the communication theory of the 1950s,

envisagesmany possiblechannels. y:f"'vfi' N $e

e

‘'

e>r-4‘v

‘. When Sebeok considers sources, it becomes Elear howhhuman signification- anthroposemiosis - is only a small part of a universe off-'.‘ s

signs.

p

»

Ifthiswas notdiverseenough,considerSebeok’sclassificationof the channels through which senders and receivers of messages can interact:

F

.

M

I

.

*

e

dha

R

k-

A

“

L

—

e

/0FOANISHS! COMPONENTS

k3

Withsuchdiversityinsemiosis,anygeneralmodelof itsfunctioning would be very complex indeed. Y

P

-,’r i

P L’i'u

] )

\f;-ffi‘si&h

3

What Sebeok’sworkallowsis a widerunderstandingof semiosisand its modellingprocesses. Italso allows fora reassessment of wholesemiotic traditions.

Soviet Semiotics In 1970, Sebeok found himself in Estonia where he was the subject

ofan impromptu invitation toaddressthe‘fourt_hbiennialTartu

onSemiotcs. School Summer

o

R

P

T

Given the centralityof Umwelt to his work, it was appropriate that

Sebeok shouldbroachthe relatedtopicof “modelling”or, to putit

anotherway,“aprogramme ofbehaviour”. “Modelling” impliesa

conceptionof the world“wherethe environmentstandsin reciprocal relationship with some other system, such as an individual organism,

a collectivity,a computer,or the like,and where its reflection functionsas a controlof thissystem’stotalmodeof communication”. In this formulation, the products of human behaviour - linguistictexts,

cultures,social institutions- are notso muchthe resultof an unfathomablecreativityasof a serres of Ilmrtatlonsor choucesof

operation. r

L}

"

'

u

’

Sebeok’s chosen topic was also appropriate because Soviet

b

-\‘

":. ‘1

semioticsis well-knownfor itsworkwiththe notionof “modelling”,a hypothesiswhose centraltenetshave had a troubledbutfecund . historyin Russian intellectuallife. h‘

,

:

eyt

Y A A A A N ¥ i i) AvssE'E'Em'n A/

b .

Bt .

'

¢

Sovietsemioticsevolvedfromsome key strandsin 20th century Russian thought. At the turn of the century, materialistssuch as G.V. Plekhanov (1856-1918) and Marxists such as V.I. Lenin (1870-1924) had included theories of signs and consciousness in their philosophical writings, as had those intellectualswho are 2 F‘] b referred to as “neo-Kantians”. But probably the most important

momentfor Russian semiotics came in theyears immediately preceding the Russian

Revolutionin 1917.

-

Sergej Karcevskij (1894-1955),1L a student who had attended

courseinGeneva, Saussure’s

returnedtoMoscowin 1917 and:

brought with him a repository of ideas which fell on the fertile

mindsof the MoscowLinguistic Circle (1915-21). Headed by the young Roman

Jakobson - who also wrote poetry under the name

Aljagrov- the Clrcle had links with another organlzatron

. J

1

g

e

il o o

o

B

m—

-

The Petrograd Society for the Study of Poetic Language (or OPOJAZ, 1916-30), was the hub of Russian Formalism and featured the participationof, among others, Boris Ejxenbaum (1886-1959), Viktor Sklovskij (1893-1985), Jurij Tynyanov (1894-1943), Petr Bogatyrev (1893-1971) and, again, Roman Jakobson.

Itis difficultto providea watertightdefinitionof Russian Formalism; : indeed,the name itselfwas bestowedupon the 5 groupby itsopponents. While the work of the Petrograd group did not consist of an

exclusiveconcernwith“form”as the name “formalist”(with a small “f”) might suggest,

did explorethe specific

it >

e

character of literature.

These theoristsdevelopedan '1understandingof the literarytext which focused on its very

literariness(literaturnost)and its capacity of “makingstrange’" ¥ ' (ostranenie),bothdemarcating ,o‘.it as specifically a literaryentity. Likewise,the MoscowCirclestarted to examinethe notionof the peculiarlyaesthetic function which gave poetic language its seemingly intrinsic nature.

CERTAIN COMMVUNICATIONS MAY CONTAIN MANY ELEMENTTSWHICHMAKE THEM COMPLEX,

.

MVULTILAYERED STRVCTVRES, BVUTTHEY CAN ALSO

(ONTAIN ASPECIAL

COMPONENT WHICH IMPUTES

AN OVERALLCHARACTERTO THE COMMUNICATION.,

In the case of “artistic”texts,thisis a dominating“aesthetic”component. Artistictexts such as poems may have a referentialcomponent which allows them to make reference to the world; but a poem is not

straightforwardly a documentof culturalhistory,socialrelationsor biography.Instead,it has an aestheticaspectwhichmightbe termedits “poeticity”,that use of language which makes it a poem and not prose.

These were ideas thatJakobson tookwithhim when he leftRussia for Prague in 1920. However, he maintained links with his old Formalist colleagues and, in 1928, published with Tynyanov eight theses under the

title“Problemsin the Studyof Languageand Literature”. Here, Jakobson and Tynyanov elaborated their own notion of what

.

such as Lévi-Strausshold constitutesa “structure”.Where “structuralists” that all cultural artefactsare organized “grammatically”,like a language, Jakobson and Tynyanov insisted that “structu)r.ers"contained their

“"‘

ones. thanjustlinguistic ownlawsrather EVERY SYNCHRONIC SYSTEMHAS (TS

B

1'

]fl

Q

OWN PAST AND

FUTURE AS INSEPARAFLE STRUCTVRAL /i

(EVEN LITERARY ONES), RATHER THAN

PEING"CLOSED”, (HOULD FE

ASOPEN | CONSIDERED TOOTHER (TRVCTVRES./

e

4 -

S

'

"

™

B

e

T

‘Systems then,wereviewedas "

’ e

relationaland dynamic; the workof “art”mightbe autonomous, but it was not - a structure closed off from the world

In a sense, thisnegatedmuchof the workdone by the

Jre—

.

Formalists, for whom literature- while it was certainly an autonomous structure of literariness (literaturnost)- was not to

be understoodforits referentialpossibilitiesor itssociological contents, both of which it might have incommon with other structures.

b -,.r

:

F

The work of “art” in Jakobson and Tynyanov S theses was far from being unique in its structuralcomposition. It consisted of a system and structure like any other ' semiotic entity,the difference being that the m “aesthetic”component of its system was dominant.

For the Stalinistregime,whichgained ascendancyin the 1930s, such contentions might prove threatening to a theory of “art”

predicatedon the uplifting aspirationsof

“SocialistRealism”. u:

‘.

\

There can be littlecoincidence, then, that a Soviet semiotics not

too distantlyrelatedto the 1920s tradition of work on structurescould

only emergein the post-Stalin period,fromthe late1950son.

- 3

MR Jurij Lotman(1922-93), theleading )

:

RO

\

>

e

AT

¢

figurein the Renaissanceof semioticsin the SovietUnion, was originallya professorof literatureP

specializing inworks h

surrounding the

“Decembrist”revolt

Tsarism YLf against in 1822.

:

1

v.‘l'

B

N

A3

=

BUT MY

~ WORKONUTERARY ~

THEORYBECAME

BY THE CHARACTERIZED VSEOF SUCHTERMSAS V"Y

i.ANcuAce" “cooE”,

I~“ENTROPY”,“NOISE” : -

ETT.

o

e

W o

_—

Likehiscolleaguesin

" Moscow, V.V.lvanoy,I. I. Revzin

and Boris Uspenskij (who had founded the Associationfor MachineTranslationin 1955), Lotmanwas now addressingculturein termsof the characteristic ways in which it transfers and processes

itemsof information.As such, he was applying information theory - fromtheearlydevelopmentof \.

computers - tothemostcherishedofsignsystems.

E'LE“'&

e IH-.‘I‘ 134

o

A

A

't.,

Here,oncemore,wasan assaulton the

wholeedificeof “Literature”,an assaultthat

.

might be called “anti-humanist”precisely because it bracketed the supposed

“spiritual”,“human”,“ennobling”qualitiesof an artefactin favour of scrutimzmg its

informational bearing. r

'71‘

k_\

ASTRRTRNS

Claude Shannon had devised his groundbreaking communication model in order to present in “digital”form all the bits that went into

makingthe “analogue”product.In one sense, thiskindof procedure constitutes quite a radical attack on traditionalmodes of thinking.

We can visualizetimeas a clockface.Each space betweenthe numbers analogically represents something.

'

s

Digitalrepresentationis different.A digitalwatchsimplytellsyou

the

time in numbers; there is no space on a digitalwatch whichis

analogousto “fiveminutes”.

‘

An analogue which seems to be all of a piece (e.g. a lecture to an audience, a painting in a gallery, etc.) could be shown in digital form (e.g. as Information Source, Transmitter,Signal, etc.)

4E . N

.

rT‘)

o

T T

The digitalapproachis, essentially,the modus operandiof LéviStrauss in his analysis of the Oedipus myth (see page 62). This is also what the Soviet semioticians proceeded to do in the 1960s. In a series

of SummerSchoolsatTartuStateUniversity beginningin 1964,Jurij Lotman CULTURE

L

outlined a theory of culture.

(§

THE TOTALTY OF

NON-HEREDITARY (INFORMATION ACQYIRED, PRESERVEDAND TRANSMITTED BY THE J

VARJOVS GROVPS OF HUMAN SOCIETY.

. }

The heartless assault on humanist logic that this may at first . seem is dispelled when one considers that all cultures are characterized by a repository of knowledge which is passed on to

currentand new membersof thatculture.

g Al

b

s

-~

i

s But cultureis notjust a store. For the Sovietsemioticiansof the 60s and 70s, cultureis also a “SecondaryModellingSystem”:it provndes an ongoing model for human knowledge and interaction.

TG

Ny I—

=

fi-"i-’",,_

.'",

-

$OA

i

t".l\u!‘a;

I

‘Because culture is built on

~natural language, Lotman ;

-

suggests that one way culture

d

isinits beclassified might

ofinformation Themerging NOTE theory and

conceptualization of the sign.

theory oftheunderlying prescience

hetakesarethe Theexamples

semiotics of culture by Lotman represents an amazing

of cyberspace.

_

y

H

B

culturesof the (Russian) Middle

AgesandtheEnlightenment.

S

B

S

e LE

Ry .

A

b

»

TheMiddle Ages are I"'j characterized bysemiotic abundance. Everyobject

nlightenment,

Ly

on theotherhand,is

characterizedby a belief A AN n reasonand the rational .l“' Ly eschewingof allartifice.

has the potentialof semiosis and meaning is everywhere. Nothing is insignificant.

The “natural”is valued over the “cultural”(i.e. “unnatural”

. TECS

or artificial- as embodiedin

the constructions

knownassigns).

Ry

N

]

S

N

=

3 S s=

S

N =

s N S 3 S ™=

3! N R b

3 >

N

-

Q

”// &7 L

)

3

%~ .

v

\

"»n

R ER


i

Y N

A "REALIST"ONE.

O e

iL

Thinkers such as Eco and Sebeok are confident of the abilityto apprehend the “real”, although it is an arduous process and involves a continuous reformulation, beyond a simple belief in objective concrete

B

entities,of whatthe “real”actuallyis.

-

e

I

As we have seen, the SoviettheoristLotmanbelievesthe presentto be distinguished by a semiotic consciousness.

AL

=

'

(T 1§ THE TASK.OF FUTURE (EMIOTICIANS

TO IMPLEMENT

PEIRCEAN SEMIOTICS,

(AVSSUREAN SEMIOLOQY,

OR.A SYNTHESISOF FOTH

- TOINTERPRET \

-

THEWORLD.

‘

1;! a

-

BT-

-

However,itwouldbe remissto end thisbook withoutbriefly

demonstrating thatthe act of semiotic analysis is actually an act of agency, potentiallychanging or contributingto the world of semiosis.

dtviithy

el

Two examples will suffice.

Interestingly,they are taken from Britain, a country which has hitherto

featuredlittlein thisaccountof semiotics.

m

Social Semioticsw.

Deriving from the work of the British linguist, M. A. K. Halliday (b. 1925), “social semiotics” was developed by theorists in Britain and

Australiawhose backgroundwas oftenthatof linguisticsor literary studyand who foundthemselvesin universitydepartmentsdevoted!' -_'- o to media and culturalstudies. Hallidaydoes not envisagethe splitbetweenlangueand parolea%" absolute in the way that Saussure does. Rather, like Volosinov, who had criticized Saussure in the late 1920s for focusing on /angue, Halliday restates the importance of acts of speech. "

:,‘.*&:

“

) (T 1§HERE, PETWEEN A

(PEAKER. ANDHEARER, THAT LANGUAGE(§ GENERATED, AND THE

SOCIALCONTEXTACTUALLY

frAPPEARSWITHINTHEV_fl

UTTERANCE RATHER. THAN EXISTING EXTERNALLY IN A

p 'a4 N . _':-.' .

"}l

.':.

.

'

’g

.45\%

L]

{35}

e

Jé‘:'t'.'t"l‘

’

For Halliday, children’s language development is a process of “learning how to mean”. This is not unlike Eco’s idea thatthe adult, - who has acquired decoding abilities, possesses an “internal”

| |

dictionary(fullof words)and an encyclopedia(fullof facts)which ,;are actually one and the same.

BT . 1 ‘?P."

Il".? Ay

R

CEO L

AR

o

LS

~

e

.,!

L 4

RT e

L

AR

LRIl

MUY

De

CONSIDERED AN ACTIVE

PARTICIPANT IN THE

PRODVCTIONOF A (YSTEM OF MEANING INSTEADOF

RECIPIENT THE PASSIVE OF GRAMMATICAL RVLES.

-

p—

The studyof | J, I-‘ acquisitionof - children’s B (and resistanceto) languageon thisbasis

tellus a greatdealabout willtherefore

humanexpectationsof semioticsystemsand the ‘motivations behind meaning attributionand creation.

~ ~

-

R

workofGuntherKress(b.1940) Thesocialsemiotic oftenconsistsof detailedanalysisof youngchildren’s

responsestoandcreationofverbal,writtenandvisualtexts.

Kress holdsthatthereis a relationshipof “motivation’f b‘et_ween_th el signifier(in Saussureanterms) andthe sign user. ‘.'};*:;’t; DAT

e o

Many semioticians (e.g. Benveniste) have discussed relations of “motivation”but these have been directed at the concept of

10

“arbitrariness”.A motivatedsign usuallyhas a close relationship- not an arbitraryone - betweensignifierand signified,as in the relationof

to befoundin Peirce’sicon. resemblance

t'&‘a'.

A

oi

.

{

RN

Wy

WhatKressdoes is different.

Take this drawing executed by a 3-year-old.

~Forthechild,thisisacar.Sitting onhisfather’s '

lap, the child commented as he drew: “Do you want to watch me? . . . Got two wheels. . . and two wheels at the back cee and two wheels here. . .

that'sa funnywheel.”

"_

\

s

o, -

p

s ¥

talk”= organiccurves r,' “Small

Ll

~ “Small [ELLLECRGRIERY

r

Ut of the shadow of “Big talk” . ‘ |

-

.t.: TS GOOD TOT'ALKE

. +

One of the key factors in the reorientation of British Telecom’s advertising campaign would therefore need to be an elimination of the

gender bias thatmade telephonesthe provinceof male-dominated“Big talk”.A playingdown of the “irrationality” of “Smalltalk”and a promotion of itssuitabilityformen wouldneedto be incorporatedintothe o b R ah o B 4

S R The firstin the new campaignof ads, frontedby actorBob Hoskins,set aboutthistaskwithconsiderablesuccess.

e

m—w

fi

1 E&—

-

-:-—..;.

7

aN e T

R

| m‘-_'mzflw‘

3

What Semiotic Solutions demonstrates quite strongly is that there are many people going about their lives unaware of the factthat they are also immersed in semiosis and sometimes “doing”semiotics. At the last congress of the InternationalAssociation for Semiotic Studies, panels took place on gesture, artificialintelligence, theatre, cognitive science, cinema, design, politics, 11 time, music, space, biology, Firstness,painting, advertising, law, the Grateful Dead (!), narrative

aesthetics, religion, architecture, thebody, humour, calligraphy, dance, didactics, history, regimes of verisimilitude,

!w“""-"F( andothers.rmarketing, Here, then, is a broad church.

Moretellingly,UmbertoEco recently respondedat some lengthtoa request to define the domain of semiotics; some way into

his answer itbecame apparent that he was implying it was

F .

"‘

Further Readlng " —

‘

-

q

‘

-

The literatureof semioticsis bigand gettingbigger.The followingtitles correspondto the areas coveredin thisbook and may be used as starting pointsfor furtherreading. There are twogood generalbookswhichbringtogetherdifferenttraditionsin semiotics: S. Hervey, Semiotic Perspectives, London: Allen and Unwin, 1982,

and the under-usedcollectionof helpfulessays (e.g. Eco on Jakobson), M. Krampenet al eds., Classicsof Semiotics,New Yorkand London: Plenum Press, 1987. Some landmarkwritingsin semiotics(alongwithsome from sociolinguistics,pragmaticsand receptiontheory)are to be found in P. Cobley ed., The CommunicationTheoryReader,London: Routledge,1996. On classical semiotics start with D. S. Clarke, Principles of Semiotic, London:

Routledgeand Kegan Paul, 1987. Saussure'sCours can be foundin twotranslations:Course in General I Linguistics,trans.W. Baskin,Glasgow:Fontana, 1974, and Course in GeneralLinguistics,trans. R. Harris,London: Duckworth,1983. The worksof Peirce are also in two editions: The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders

Peirce, 8 vols., ed. CharlesHartshorne,Paul Weiss and A. W. Burks, Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress, 1931-58,and The Writingsof CharlesS. Peirce: A ChronologicalEdition,30vols. (projected),ed. C. J. W. Kloesel,Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress, 1982-.These are hard going; it may be bestto startwithJ. Hoopesed., Peirceon Signs: Writingson Semiotic,Chapel Hilland London: Universityof NorthCarolinaPress, 1991. A is J. K. good introductionand dualconsiderationof Peirceand “structuralism” Sheriff, The Fate of Meaning: Charles Peirce, Structuralismand Literature,

Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1989. Roland Barthes'Mythologies,trans.AnnetteLavers, London: Vintage,1996 is a must,as are the essays in the populareditionentitled/Image-Music-Text, ed. and trans. StephenHeath,London: HarperCollins,1996. If you enjoy these, go on to S/Z,trans.RichardHoward,Oxford:Blackwell,1974. Your studiesof Claude Lévi-Strauss,on the otherhand, can commencewith StructuralAnthropology1, trans.ClaireJacobson and BrookeGrundfest Schoepf,Harmondsworth:Penguin, 1977. In terms of the topic of semiotics, the best place to begin with Jacques Lacan

is his “The agencyof the letterin the unconsciousor reasonsince Freud”in Ecrits:A Selection,trans.Alan Sheridan,London: Tavistock,1977. You can provideyourselfwitha preliminarycontextby consultingDarianLeader's Lacan forBeginners,Cambridge:Icon, 1995.

———

I

W"L B

i

Hl e

e

g

e

e

Derrida’swork (likeLacan’s)is renownedforbeingdifficult.However,his early writingsare eminentlysensible.Try“Semiologyand grammatology:interview withJulia Kristeva”in P. Cobleyed., The CommunicationTheoryReader, London: Routledge,1996and thengo on to Of Grammatology,trans.Gayatri C. Spivak, Baltimoreand London: Johns HopkinsUniversityPress, 1976. The keywritingsof Charles Morrisare availablein Foundationsof the Theory of Signs,Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1938and Significationand Significance:A Studyof the Relationsof Signsand Values,Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1964. Beforetryingtheseyou mightwish to checkout the essay by Roland Posner,“CharlesMorrisand the BehaviouralFoundations of

’

in ClassicsofSemiotics(see above). Semiotics”

i.'

l'

_._J

Sebeok shouldbe approachedthroughthe collectionof his essays entitledA Sign is Just a Sign, Bloomingtonand Indianapolis:Indiana UniversityPress, 1991, and his 1972 book, Perspectivesin Zoosemiotics,The Hague: Mouton. D. P. Lucided., SovietSemiotics:An Anthology,Baltimoreand London: Johns HopkinsUniversityPress, 1988,and H. Baraned., Semioticsand Laa -4 Structuralism:Readings fromtheSovietUnion,WhitePlains, N. Y.: InternationalArtsand SciencesPress, 1974, containkeytextsby Lotmanand others in thistradition.This tastermay leadyou on to J. Lotman, Universeof the Mind: ASemioticTheoryof Culture,trans.A. Shukman,Bloomington:

IndianaUniversityPress,1991. m‘.’

1 't'ni

&

The SelectedWritingsof Roman Jakobson, The Hagueand Berlin: Mouton, 1962-87,run to 8 volumesand are worthlookingat simplyto get a sense of the breadthof Jakobson'swork. Moredigestibleare the twosmaller collectionsof writingsspanninghis career: On Language,ed. L. R. Waugh and M. Monville-Burston, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995,

and Languagein Literature,ed. K. Pomorskaand S. Rudy, Cambridge,Mass.: BelknapPress, 1987. The PragueSchoolare representedin various anthologiesof writings,forexampleP. Steinered., The Prague School: SelectedWritings,1929-1946,Austin:Universityof TexasPress, 1982. .l Availableforsome time, Mukarovsky'sAestheticFunction,Norm and Valueas SocialFacts,trans.M. Suino,Ann Arbor: Universityof MichiganSlavic Contributions,1979, is a must. LI

. The bestcommentarieson the PragueSchoolare T. G. Winner,“Prague -"] structuralismand semiotics:Neglectand resultingfallacies”,Semiotica105 1 (3/4) 1995, pp. 243-276,and F. W. Galan, HistoricStructures:The Prague SchoolProject, 1928-1946,Austin:Universityof TexasPress, 1985. ] .fl The “popular”Eco and the semioticianoverlap:tryA Theoryof Semrotrcs 2y Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress, 1976,the essaycollectionTravels IIP Hyper-reality,London: Picador,1986,and the novel The Name of the Rose,

London: Picador, 1984.

"]‘"V

“eAET F’iq

T

n

GuntherKress’ mostrecentworkcan be foundin BeforeWriting:Rethinking PathsintoLiteracy,London: Routledge,1996. MontyAlexander,MaxBurtand AndrewCollinson,“Bigtalk,smalltalk:BT's strategicuse of semioticsin planningitscurrentadvertising”,Journal of theMarketResearch Society,Vol. 37 No. 2 (April 1995) pp. 91-102, givesa flavourof SemioticSolutions’work.

B

Paul Cobley SeniorLecturerin Communicationsat LondonGuildhallUniversity and the authorof TheAmericanThriller(Macmillan,forthcoming).

~is

LitzaJansz,AlisonRonald, Appignanesi, wouldliketothankRichard

He

Emily Elkingtonand Shellythecatfortheirhelp and encouragement.

-

:

h

'

Litza Jansz

b‘—'_'-

t

e

She

-

wholectures part-time is an illustrator/animator

P

in Animationand MediaStudies. Her previoustitlesforIcon Books include FascismforBeginnersand The HolocaustforBeginners.

wouldliketothankPaulCobley,ZoranJevtic,TonyGoodman,

Howard Ely, CliffordJansz, Norma, Nat,Mark,Miles Arthur Almo Ellingham and Kenburyforsupportand inspiration.

|"‘*“j'

s

-

- “Enormously interesting”. ; -Lord Longford

“A fascinating, insightful ortrait”. P Sunday Times

“Lively and intelligent”.

“Inspired... packed with information”.

Irish Press

Today

‘ “A pithy, intelligent introduction”. i ke BBC Music Magazine

T ACGINNESRS

March1996

Fll

B

April1996

A e

j’q

1996

ril

.

.

May 1996 !?

o S A '." BN

.

jh

B

ol

rqf

Septembgri_

IIL-I

e’

Octobor 1996 S il

September 19 O ML

I

October 1996