Linguistic Semiotics (Peking University Linguistics Research, 3) 9811532451, 9789811532450

Citation preview

Peking University Linguistics Research 3

Mingyu Wang

Linguistic Semiotics

Peking University Linguistics Research Volume 3

Peking University Linguistics Research (PKULR) is a cooperation project between Springer Nature and Peking University Press. This series presents the latest discoveries and developments of significance in linguistic research conducted by famous Chinese scholars. Titles in this series are carefully evaluated, examined and selected by Peking University (which ranks No. 10 in the world and No. 1 in China in the QS World University Rankings-Linguistics 2016) and Peking University Press (which was honored as the most influential publisher in linguistics according to Chinese Book Citation Index, 2016), covering all major aspects of linguistics— phonetics, phonology, pragmatics, semantics, morphology, syntax, theoretical linguistics, applied linguistics and inter-disciplinary studies. PKULR aims to provide an invaluable guide to the very nature of language. On the one hand, it tries to offer a thorough grounding in the fundamental concepts of linguistics; on the other hand, it also attaches great importance to the practical application of these concepts, esp. in Chinese context.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15701

Mingyu Wang

Linguistic Semiotics

123

Mingyu Wang Tianjin Foreign Studies University Tianjin, China Translated by Jing Li

Chinese Fund for the Humanities and Social Sciences ISSN 2662-3129 ISSN 2662-3137 (electronic) Peking University Linguistics Research ISBN 978-981-15-3245-0 ISBN 978-981-15-3246-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7 Jointly published with Peking University Press The print edition is not for sale in the Mainland of China. Customers from the Mainland of China please order the print book from: Peking University Press. © Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publishers, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publishers, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publishers remain neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Ferdinand de Saussure Quotes

“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. Semiology would show that what constitutes signs, what laws govern them. Since the science does not yet exist, no one can say what it would be; but it has a right to existence, a place staked out in advance. Linguistics is only a part of the general science of semiology; the laws discovered by semiology will be applicable to linguistics, and the latter will circumscribe a well-defined area within the mass of anthropological facts.” “The task of the linguist is to find out what makes language a special system within the mass of semiological data…if I have succeeded in assigning linguistics a place among the sciences, it is because I have related it to semiology,” “To me the language problem is mainly semiological, and all developments derive their significance from that important fact. If we are to discover the true nature of language, we must learn what it has in common with all other semiological systems.” —Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics

v

Contents

1

Introduction to Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Humans and Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Man as Symbolic Animal . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 Man as Advanced Symbolic Animal . . . 1.2 Sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Concept of Sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Types of Sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Sign Process and Sign Field . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Language and Sign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 The Nature and Definitions of Language 1.3.2 Classification of Language . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3 Language Is a Sign System . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.4 Language as a Special System of Signs . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 1 3 10 10 13 20 23 23 32 33 34 53

2

Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 The Object of Linguistics . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Classification of Linguistics . . . . . . . . 2.2 Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Traditions of Semiotics: An Overview . 2.2.2 The Establishment of Semiotics . . . . . . 2.2.3 Classification of Semiotics . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Branches of Semiotic Studies . . . . . . . 2.2.5 The Significance of Semiotic Studies . . 2.3 Linguistic Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

55 55 55 59 62 63 67 69 71 73 74

3

The Binary Opposition of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 The Status of Language in Speech Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Features of Langue and Parole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79 79 81

. . . . . . . . . . .

vii

viii

Contents

3.3

3.2.1 Features of Langue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Features of Parole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Relations Between Langue and Parole . . . . The Binary Opposition Between Langue and Parole

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

81 82 83 83

4

The Hierarchy of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 The Hierarchical Approach in a Broad Sense . 4.2 The Hierarchical Approach in a Narrow Sense 4.2.1 The Ontological Approach . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 The Methodological Approach . . . . . 4.2.3 The Epistemological Approach . . . . . 4.3 The Basic Levels of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Syntactic Relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Semantic Relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Pragmatic Relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. 87 . 87 . 88 . 90 . 92 . 95 . 98 . 99 . 100 . 101 . 102

5

Meaning of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Different Views Toward the Meaning of Linguistic Signs 5.1.1 The Methodological Approach to Meaning . . . . 5.1.2 The Ontological Approach to Meaning . . . . . . . 5.1.3 The Epistemological Approach to Meaning . . . . 5.2 The Hierarchical Approach to the Meaning of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Graphical Representation of the “Hierarchical Approach” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Interpretation of the “Hierarchical Approach” . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

103 103 104 113 116

. . . . . 119 . . . . . 120 . . . . . 121

6

Reference of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Meaning and Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 The Opposition of Two Views . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2 Historical Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3 Relations Between Meaning and Reference 6.2 Features and Hierarchical Types of Reference . . . . . 6.2.1 The Referentiality of Words . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 The Hierarchy of Referential Relations . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

127 127 127 128 129 136 136 139 142

7

Relations Between Linguistic Signs . 7.1 Syntagm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.1 Definition of Syntagm 7.1.2 Features of Syntagm . . 7.2 Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Definition of Paradigm 7.2.2 Features of Paradigm .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

143 144 144 145 146 146 146

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Contents

7.3

ix

Opposition and Connection Between Syntagm and Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Constraints on Paradigm and Syntagm . . . . . . 7.4.1 Constraints on Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 Constraints on Syntagm . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

149 153 153 162

Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 The Relation Between Synchrony and Diachrony . . . . . 8.1.1 Ferdinand de Saussure’s Views . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.2 Dialectical Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Synchronic Approaches to Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 The Importance of Synchrony . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.2 Panchrony of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Diachronic Approaches to Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 Evolution as a Universal Feature of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.2 Factors Underlying the Evolution of Language . 8.4 Laws of Development of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1 Universal Laws of Language Development . . . 8.4.2 The Particularity of Linguistic Laws . . . . . . . . 8.5 Contradictory Variation of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . 8.5.1 Assimilation and Dissimilation . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.2 Adding and Removing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.3 Combination and Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

173 173 173 176 179 179 182 183

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

183 186 195 195 197 199 199 201 202

Functions of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 An Introduction to Functionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.1 Origins of Functionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.2 Functionalist Approaches to Signs . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.3 Rethinkings of Functions of Linguistic Signs . . . 9.2 Social Factors and Formalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.1 Functions of Linguistic Signs and Social Factors 9.2.2 Formalism and Functionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Methodologies of the Functionalist Approaches . . . . . . . 9.3.1 Three Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2 Four Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

205 205 205 212 215 217 217 220 221 221 224

10 The Subjective Approach to Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Syntactic Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Semantic Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.1 Semantic Subject as A Substance . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.2 Coordination of Semantic Subject and Predicate . 10.2.3 Distinctions Between Semantic Subject and Syntactic Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

227 228 229 230 230

7.4

8

9

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . 230

x

Contents

10.2.4 Semantic Subject with Different Sentence Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.5 Types of Semantic Subject . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Pragmatic Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.1 The Psychological Subject . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.2 The Message Sender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.3 The Speaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

231 233 234 234 236 237

11 The Dual Metaphorical View of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Common Features of Metaphor and Metonymy . . . . . . . . . 11.1.1 Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.2 Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.3 Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.4 Misplacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Difference Features of Metaphor and Metonymy . . . . . . . . . 11.2.1 “Similarity” Versus “Proximity” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.2 “Vertical” Versus “Horizontal” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.3 “Same Position” Versus “Different Position” . . . . . 11.2.4 “Descriptive Function” Versus “Referential Function” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.5 “Simile Reduction” Versus “Discourse Reduction” . 11.3 Representations of Metaphor and Metonymy . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.1 Representations of Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.2 Representations of Metonymy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

239 240 240 240 241 242 242 243 243 244

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

244 245 246 246 248

12 The Converseness of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1 Converseness from the Perspective of Linguistic Semiotics 12.1.1 The Semantic Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1.2 The Grammatical Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1.3 The Logical Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 An Interpretation of Converse Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2.1 Synonymousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2.2 Reverseness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2.3 Freeness and Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2.4 Independence in Dictionary Definition . . . . . . . . . 12.2.5 Activeness in Actant Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2.6 Non-compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2.7 Bilateralness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2.8 Concatenation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2.9 Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

253 254 254 256 256 257 257 258 259 259 260 260 261 261 262 262

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents

xi

13 The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 The Concept of Iconicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1.1 Origin of the Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1.2 Implications and Chinese Renderings of the Term 13.1.3 Definition of the Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 The Philosophical Basis of Iconicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.1 Traditional Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.2 Cognitive Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.3 Embodied Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 Classification of Iconicity and Its Manifestation in Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3.1 Imagic Iconicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3.2 Diagrammatic Iconicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3.3 Metaphoric Iconicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 Iconicity and Phonetic Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.1 Phonetic Meanings of Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.2 Phonetic Meanings of Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 The Iconicity in Chinese Language and Culture . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

263 263 263 265 266 267 268 268 269

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

270 271 271 277 279 280 281 283 289

14 Two Decades of Semiotic Studies in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1 Three Major Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1.1 The Starting Period (1980–1986) . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1.2 The Maturing Period (1987–1993) . . . . . . . . . . 14.1.3 The Thriving Period (1994–2002) . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 Major Research Areas and Accomplishments . . . . . . . . 14.2.1 Researches on Basic Theories of Semiotics . . . 14.2.2 Researches on Linguistic Semiotics . . . . . . . . . 14.2.3 Researches on Applications of Semiotics . . . . . 14.2.4 Researches on Cultural and Literary Semiotics . 14.3 An Outlook of Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

291 291 291 292 292 293 293 298 300 301 303

15 A Bibliometric Analysis of Chinese Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.1 Research Topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 Discipline Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 Core Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.1 Determination of Core Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.2 Analysis of Core Author Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3.3 Analysis of the H-Index of Core Authors . . . . . . . . 15.4 Frequency of Citation of Core Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4.1 Total Frequency of Citation of Core Authors . . . . . 15.4.2 Determination of Highly Cited Titles and Analysis of Their Frequency of Citation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 Analysis and Discussion of Research Results . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

305 305 307 308 308 309 309 311 311

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . 311 . . . 317

xii

Contents

16 Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1 Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1.1 Part I: General Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1.2 Part II: Linguistic Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1.3 Part III: General Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1.4 Part IV: Cultural Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 Modern Linguistic Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2.1 Part I: An Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics . . . . . 16.2.2 Part II: Theoretical Origins of Modern Linguistic Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2.3 Part III: Semiotic Studies of Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2.4 Part IV: Semiotic Studies of Sentence . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2.5 Part V: Semiotic Studies of Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3 Semiotics: Principles and Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3.1 Reflection on the Binary Relationship Between Saussure and Peirce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3.2 Meaning-Based Semiotic Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3.3 “Neutral” Concept Driven by Motivational Motivation and Structural Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . 16.3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4 Basic Issues in the Development of Modern Chinese Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4.1 Neutralization of Traditional Chinese Signs . . . . . . . 16.4.2 The Neutralization Trend of Modern Semiotic Studies in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4.3 Re-understanding Saussure Remains an Important Subject of Chinese Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4.4 Relationship Between Chinese and Western Semiotic Theories: From Monologue to Dialogue . . . 16.4.5 Shift from Pure Theory Research to the Combination of Signification Theory and Signification Practice . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

319 319 320 321 323 327 329 330 331

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

332 336 339 340 344 345

17 The Historical Mission of Chinese Semiotics . . . . . . . 17.1 The Semiotic Spheres of Chinese Semiotics . . . . 17.2 The Academic Philosophy of Chinese Semiotics . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . 347 . . 349 . . 351 . . 357 . . 358 . . 358 . . 359 . . 361 . . 361 . . 363 . . . .

. . . .

365 366 369 372

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373

Chapter 1

Introduction to Linguistic Signs

1.1 1.1.1

Humans and Signs Man as Symbolic Animal

About the definition of “man,” from the past to the present, many famous people give their insights. For example, Aristotle states that man is by nature a political animal; Marcus Tullius Cicero believed that man is a social animal, and Benjamin Franklin argued that man is a tool-making animal. But Ernst Cassirer, a German philosopher of the twentieth century, offered a new definition of “man” in his book An Essay on Man, “…instead of defining man as an animal rationale, we should define him as an animal symbolicum. Symbolic thought and symbolic behavior are among the most characteristic features of human life, and that the whole progress of human culture is based on these conditions is undeniable.” The sign system makes humans become proactive in the physical world. With signs as a medium, humans’ reactions to the external stimulation are no longer instinctive, passive but positive, conscious and proactive. This is because the sign system frees humans from the current situation, lets them maintain a distance with the reality and encourages them to think actively and delay their reactions. Thus, humans can not only live a life according to their experience and immediate needs but also live in the midst of imagination and hope. With the help of the sign system, transient feelings and impressions are organized and systematized, which lay a foundation for and inject experience and imagination into human thinking. In the process of recognition or practice, one’s personal feelings cannot be conveyed to others without signs. And what can be conveyed to others is only the part that other people share, and this part can only be conveyed to the people who have the same feelings under similar conditions. Without signs, human knowledge can neither be formed nor be realized by other people. Biological evolution is a result of genetic variation and natural selection, and the sign system develops a way for cultural evolution for humans. It, to a large extent, releases humans from the © Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_1

1

2

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

pressure of natural selection and helps them explore more possibilities for future development. The progresses, made by humans, in thought and practice, all contribute to a more elaborate and comprehensive sign system. Cultural evolution is different from biological evolution in that the achievement of biological evolution is reflected by individuals and the achievement of cultural evolution is reflected by society. For individuals, traces of biological evolution are inborn, while achievements of cultural evolution can only be gained by learning. An individual’s relation to cultural environment is just like his relation to natural environment, and both relations involve adaption and transformation. The individual should first adapt to a certain sign system before he can use it creatively, take part in its evolution and make his contributions to the evolution of cultural environment. In the cultural evolution of all humans and the growth of an individual, it is remarkable and also quite difficult to realize that everything, besides being itself, can be a potential sign, which represents meanings of other things different from the sign itself. Humans have finally got rid of constraints of practical operations after a long period of time and reached the stage of sign operations, which use signs to think. Take “number,” a kind of sign, as an example. In all numbers, the most basic and simplest one is natural number. Knowing natural numbers indicates that human civilization has developed into a higher stage. Bertrand Russell and Jean Piaget analyzed, respectively, the formation of the concept of natural numbers in humans and children. According to Piaget, children don’t know natural numbers until they are seven or eight years old. Why? The answer is that to understand natural numbers, one should learn to ignore the attributes of the objects to be counted and abstract numbers from the counting acts. But it is still not enough to understand natural numbers only by doing so. Abstracting numbers from counting acts may just mean understanding one single natural number. For example, the number 5 can be abstracted from five consecutive counting acts, and the number 6 can be abstracted from six consecutive counting acts, etc. To truly understand natural numbers, one must know the relationship between classification and order. For example, to understand the natural number 5, the class 5 governed by counting acts should be understood. In the meantime, one should also understand order relations between this class and the class 4 or 6, namely understanding that the class 4 is included in the class 5 and the class 5 is included in the class 6. Russell said, “It must have required many ages to discover that a brace of pheasants and a couple of days were both instances of the number 2: the degree of abstraction involved is far from easy. And the discovery that 1 is a number must have been difficult” (1982: 8). Why? Because a brace of pheasants and a couple of days are not the number 2 and a cow is not the number 1, either. One must comprehend the number 2 and the number 1 before he discovers that a brace of pheasants and a couple of days are instances of the number 2, and a cow is an instance of the number 1. According to Russell, in order to comprehend the number, the first thing to be clear about is the distinction between instances of number and those of a special number. The number 3 is an instance of number and a trio of cows

1.1 Humans and Signs

3

is an instance of the number 3, but a trio of men should never be regarded as an instance of number. The number 3 neither equals to a trio consisting of three persons, nor to a class consisting of bed, stool and table. Then what does it equal to? The number 3 is a class that is formed by a trio of members. The class of the number 3 may include infinite collections of trios. All the trios, regardless of their other properties, still have a fundamental relation between each other, that is, a relation of similarity. The relation of similarity refers to a one–one relation between the elements of a set which has two or three members. Accordingly, a number can be defined as anything which is the number of some class. The number of a class is the class of all those classes that have a one–one correlation with it. (ibid: 22–23) The one–one correlation between classes emphasized by Russell is not contradictory to the counting activities emphasized by Piaget. Both of them demonstrate that, as a sign, a number cannot be simply abstracted from external things for the implication of a number mainly comes from counting activities rather than external things. Once humans establish a sign relationship, besides physical relations, between themselves and objects, such relationship can neither be separated with humans nor be confined to a certain area. Rather, it will become a universally applicable principle which can be extended to all areas of human activities. For humans, anything has the potential to be a sign and the meaning of all things can be expressed through signs. Hence, humans can see the world from a new perspective and the world will have new content and meaning. Seeing the world through signs, humans provide themselves with abstract expressions of the object world.

1.1.2

Man as Advanced Symbolic Animal

There are many different types of signs in our daily life and we use them all the time (Wang 1992). Let us start with the symbolic function of human organs. Humans are the most creative animals who can make good use of their organs to convey information and transform them into specific symbolic meanings. For example, people often call eyes the window to the soul, so there are numerous descriptions of the eyes’ symbolic function including ogle, wink, contempt, glower, loving eyes, glaring eyes, queenly eyes, warm eyes, hopeless eyes, greedy eyes, pity eyes, begging eyes, blank eyes, shifty eyes, haughty eyes and so on. Humans also can exert control over their lips and make such ability reach the peak: curl one’s lips to show scorn, pout one’s lips to show displeasure, purse one’s lips to show anger and part one’s lips to show astonishment. The head movements also can send many different signals: nodding up and down signals agreement; turning the head from side to side indicates disagreement; tilting the head sideways means innocence; raising the head can be a sign of arrogance while lowering the head a sign of self-abasement; tucking the chin shows incapability. The use of gestures and body postures embodies important symbolic meanings. Humans can move their hands to convey information, such as

4

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

gesticulating while talking, shaking hands, cupping one hand in the other before one’s chest, waving hand, beckoning, saluting, making a bow with hands folded in front, putting one’s palms together, clapping hands, throwing up one’s hands, wringing one’s hands and so on. There are more complicated gestures such as conductors’ gestures, referee signals, traffic police gestures, signalmen gestures and deaf-mute sign language (the latter two are in fact based on languages). The modification to certain human body parts also has many symbolic meanings (presumably, the initial aim is to add some features or to show power or charm). In this regard, body painting and tattooing are the two most typical forms of body modification. Body painting refers to painting the skin with pigments, sometimes painting the whole body in one color and sometimes drawing a pattern which is a temporary sign and can be washed away. The Australian aborigines, for example, would often carry clay lumps in such colors as red, white and yellow in case of need. They would paint the whole body red before going to a battle, white before conducting a funeral and colorful before attending a festival or dance party (nowadays, it is common to see cheerleaders paint the national or team flag on their faces, which is supposed to derive from the ancient art of body painting). Unlike body painting, tattoo is a permanent sign used for decoration or identification, which can be divided into two kinds. One is scar tattoo, which is formed through cutting the skin with a sharp shell or stone and rubbing the wound with clay. In doing so, the wound will gradually heal to visible scars or even raised lumps known as keloids. The Papuans, the indigenous people of Indonesia, even practice scar tattoos by burning the skin (in ancient times, similar stigmas would be marked on criminals or slaves). The other is puncture tattoo, which remains the most popular form of tattooing. The Li (a Chinese ethnic group living on the Hainan Island off the southern coast of China) females of a certain age would wear a puncture tattoo: first, draw a sketch of tattoo design on the face, chest, arms and legs; then, a female tattooist would prick holes against the sketch with a yellow vine needle in her left hand and pierce the holes with a needle bar in her right hand; finally, rub the wound with smoke juice or ink. In a few days, the scab of the wound would come off and the pigment would then stay permanently under the epidermis. The origin of body painting and tattooing is associated with the nude living life of the primitive people. The two forms of body modification contain obvious symbolic meanings. For instance, the Papuan females would start painting their bodies from childhood onwards; when the body is fully painted, it implies that the girl has reached marriageable age and boys can woo her. And for the Li girls, they would stab a special sign on one of their hands when falling in love with someone (this has the same effect with that of wearing a ring in the finger by today’s girls in Western countries). Moreover, body painting and tattooing also serve as signs of tribe, social class and status. Humans are continuing to create new signs. Beautiful things in nature, such as furs, feathers, flowers and leaves, stimulate people to develop selective thinking and promote them to process objects to ornament their body well. During this process, the first thing to be affected is clothing. Now, apart from preventing hot air from escaping the body, clothing is also a type of sign. It is a sign of profession (like all

1.1 Humans and Signs

5

kinds of industrial uniforms), a sign of rank (like military uniforms with different ranks, and ancient Chinese official uniforms with different ranks), a sign of wealth or poverty (well-dressed or shabbily dressed), a sign of faith (like religious costumes and monk’s ragged robe), a sign of nationality (e.g., different peoples have their own style of clothing), a sign of job (like spacesuits, diving suits and linen clothing scholars in ancient China wore), a sign of political stance (some Westerners judge the Chinese leaders as reformists or conservatives by what they wear, suit or Chinese tunic suit), a sign of era (clothing have different styles in different era, which is an objective sign), a sign of age (the young usually wear colorful clothes while the old usually wear simple clothes), a sign of character (extroverts usually wear bright clothes while introverts usually wear subdued clothes), a sign of group identity (like school uniform, company uniform and team uniform), a sign of role (like mourning clothes, wedding dresses, evening dresses, prison uniform and uniform of prisoners of war). Such examples are too numerous to mention. So, clothing is a sign system with which the human body can be ornamented successfully. In addition to clothing, there are also other ornaments worn on the body, such as earrings, nose rings, necklaces, crosses, amulets (like longevity lock), red belts (a talisman to wear for Chinese people in their Chinese-zodiac anniversary years), finger rings, bracelets, brass bells and rings around the ankles, hair clips and flowers inserted in the hair. For the symbolic role of ornaments, the most obvious example is the “necklace language” created by the people in Zululand of South Africa, which can express some meanings by necklace. To pour out hearts to their lovers, the girls in Zululand would elaborately make a necklace with colorful glass beads, grains as well as leaves and stems of plants in a certain order, and the meaning hidden in the necklace is clear to their lovers. A necklace made by a girl in Zululand is collected in the Postal Museum of Sweden in Stockholm. The message in it is “every time I see you, a shining spark in my heart ignites, and the spark is like lightning in the sky, showing my love for you.” The colors of a necklace have their special meanings: white symbolizes purity, innocence, loyalty and reliability; red signifies crying red eyes due to missing lovers; light blue means happiness; yellow symbolizes beauty; green symbolizes disease; and black stands for sorrow and misfortune. Likewise, there is an ancient tradition of “leaf letter” (a special kind of letter which uses different parts of plants to convey certain messages) among the Jingpo people, an ethnic minority group in southwest China. In 1981, a love letter from a young man to a girl and the girl’s “Dear John Letter” to him were published on the third issue of Fossils, a journal of paleontology in China. The young man used the stems, leaves, roots, flowers and fruits of 23 different plants and bundled them up in sequence with thin bamboo staffs. The leaf letter says: “Two cloves of garlic (I want you to be my wife), a block of root (I am deeply in love with you), a piece of ginger (I want to have a word with you now), a leaf of oriental white oak tree (I can’t wait to talk with you), a leaf of white flower tree (I’ve only got you inside my mind), two red beans (please don’t give me the cold shoulder), some soybeans (let’s talk about it again patiently), several fruits (please come to me and talk face to face), thatches and roots (I miss you), osteomeles anthyllidifolia (I miss nobody else but you), a

6

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

section of bamboo (let’s start talking about it specifically), bamboo leaves (and quietly), winter grass (when I give you a squeeze, please keep it a secret just between you and me), fern leaves (come on and have some fun), sour lettuces (I’ll be waiting for you in our usual place), peach leaves (I won’t change my mind and let’s realize our dream), chestnut leaves (once we’re married, we’ll never be apart), chinarue (I’m serious), yellow flowers (I’ll bear all the wedding costs), urticaceae (please just say yes), vines (this is true), langsats (it’s settled), and prunus persica (I’m waiting for your reply).” Passionate as the young man was, the girl just didn’t love him. Her reply was as follows: “Two sour loquat leaves (even if you said so much), several wild loquat leaves (it’s still no use), a white leaf tree (forget it), some cypress leaves (it’s time to go our separate ways), coriander (pooh! Enough is enough), taro leaf black charcoals (I don’t want to talk anymore) and hollyhock tree (just stop here).” Moreover, humans have also left footprints when finding signs outside the human body, among which fire was the most valuable at the earliest time. In the primitive society, the fire of a tribe must never be put off or the tribe would suffer bad luck; cremation brings humans back to fire; the smoke curling up from chimneys symbolizes a peaceful life; the ever-lasting light is an emblem of immortal souls; the Westerners blow out the candles on their birthday cakes, believing that their dreams will come true. Furthermore, fire, generally speaking, is a sign when ignited as a signal. In ancient times, fire was a signal of action in the battle at night, and signal lights and flare are used instead in modern times, such as signal lights in automatic control, routes and beacons in navigation, and warning lights of all kinds, applied in many fields other than battlefields. The beacon tower was the most influential warning light in history, which utilized fire, smoke and their combination to send military information to the headquarters. Other signs outside the human body also have obvious impacts on human civilization. The Derung people of China, the Ainu people of Japan, Eskimo and the aboriginal Australians all recorded events by inscribing marks on woods. Among the Australian aboriginal tribes, the messengers usually transmitted information by a piece of wood, upon which the signs, like today’s shorthand notes and key marks, could help them remember accurately the information to be conveyed. Another way to record was to tie knots, which was widely applied by almost all ethnicities in history. The Gaoshan nationality in Taiwan once tied knots to help remember appointments. They undid a knot every morning, and when they had all knots untied, it was time for the appointments. The most noticeable signs, since time immemorial, must be the pictorial language which was later developed into the pictograph. For instance, the ancient Persian Emperor received a painting from the Scythians, on which there were a bird, a marmot and a frog with five arrows aiming at them. The painting could be interpreted as a declaration of war by the Scythians on the Persian Empire: if you could not fly into the sky like birds, drill into the ground like marmots, or jump into the water like frogs, you’d better surrender now; otherwise, you would not be able to defend against our arrows. Interestingly, certain animals and plants are given fixed symbolic information in the Chinese paintings. Pine, cypress and crane stand for longevity, bat for happiness, sika deer for

1.1 Humans and Signs

7

emolument (the Chinese character for deer “鹿” is pronounced the same as that for “禄,” which refers to the salary that a government official receives), fish for abundance (the Chinese character for fish “鱼” is pronounced the same as the character for “余” which means “abundance”); a monkey riding on a horse represents “may you immediately be conferred the rank of marquis”; one monkey crouching on the back of another means “may you rank as marquis from generation to generation”; peony stands for wealth and honor, or chid for elegance, bamboo for men of noble character, and chrysanthemum for lofty and unyielding character (chrysanthemum is used as funeral flower and crane refers to lewd men in Western countries, which are different from Chinese concepts). Human symbolic activities take varieties of forms and penetrate everywhere, and they can be regarded as a system of signs whether they are related to the human body or not. It is their development that promotes modern civilization. As mentioned above, we talk more about human activities related to signs. Then here comes a question. Are similar activities happening to animals? Indeed, it is found that some activities of animals are always associated with symbolic behaviors. For instance, honeybees indicate the location of a nectar source and how far it is by the waggle dance; wild geese yell in a special way to signify imminent dangers; some animals give off a specific odor to attract the opposite sex during the mating season; dogs urinate along the roadside at intervals to make marks when they are in a new environment so that they can come back by recognizing those marks (Gao 1991: 118). The examples listed above may be simple. Some complicated activities can also be found among animal behaviors. Various kinds of animals in circus can follow the signals from their masters and perform what they cannot in nature. Soviet scientist Pavlov’s experiments of classical conditioning proved that animals can be trained to respond to both direct and indirect stimuli. Whenever he gave food to a dog, he rang a bell. After a number of repeats of this procedure, the bell could make the dog salivate without food. Based on a long-term study, American scientists found that elephants love “talking” to each other. Elephants can transmit feelings by a brief exhilaration or terrified whisper, so they can send secret messages to each other in case of danger, even at a long distance. Besides elephants, it was also discovered that wolves, dolphins as well as primates all understand the importance of social interactions and they spend much time every day communicating with each other. In his essay A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery published on the tenth issue of Discover in 1985, Brownlee Shannon claimed that some species of dolphins spend more than one-third of their lives testing relationships between each other, such as “does it like me? Can I bully it?” As for gregarious bonobos, they could reach a long-standing tacit agreement between males and females. Experts from the former West Germany Institute of Zoology taped the ultrasounds above human hearing produced by bats with a high-frequency recorder.

8

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

After four years of study, they discovered that bats mainly emitted four kinds of ultrasonic sounds—the sound that means fighting, the sound that means striking back, the sound that means reconciling and the sound that means contacting friends. These sounds establish the code of conduct for the entire bat group. Alfred Russel Wallace, a British biologist, once witnessed in the Malaysian rainforest that an orangutan waved hands to beg for mercy when seeing a hunter aiming at it. Jane Goodall, a British scholar, went to the African jungles alone to observe the life of chimpanzees. She discovered that chimpanzees greeted with each other by bowing, handshaking and hugging, and waved their hands when they saw her. In the examples above, we can roughly see that animals also engage in semiotic behaviors. However, there is a world of difference between animals’ and humans’ sign systems. That is perhaps why humans conduct studies in animals, not the other way round. Firstly, let us analyze the semiotic behaviors of honeybees and wild geese. Among those behaviors, there exists something that reflects another different thing. Both the dance of honeybees and the call of geese contain some messages, and these animals’ activities and messages contained are just signal response. These activities are just an instinct that animals are born with, and the relations between their indicators and embodiments are fixed, unique and indecomposable. The dance of honeybees cannot indicate anything else, but the flower source. The animals’ activities are unconscious adaption to the environment, which are restricted by the natural selection. When an experienced hunter tries to catch geese, he would sneak up on the geese at rest, give off a sound to deliberately alarm them and alert the geese to get off the ground. Before the geese fly apart, the hunter gives one shot, which can shoot down many of the geese. The hunter actually takes full advantage of the feature that geese will give an alert call when they are at risk. And the geese cannot give a call to let geese group stay. Pavlov’s dog experiments cannot support animals’ semiotic behaviors, either. Because in this process, it can’t demonstrate that the bell is a sign for food. The bell and food appear at the same time, and both are direct stimulus for dogs. Only regarding the food as a frame of reference can people see the bell as an indirect stimulus. The bell and food can respectively form two foci of excitation in the brain cortex of a dog. These two foci of excitation usually appear at the same time, and they will create a neural pathway as time passes by. One focus of excitation being activated can activate the other and lead to corresponding physical function. In this case, the experimenter successfully changes the eating environment of a dog and makes it more complicated by introducing new factors intentionally. The bell, as a part of the eating environment, can work as a signal to tell the dog that the food will be provided simultaneously. The bell, together with food, is a real thing which can’t indicate food without real physical environment. Signals are not the same as signs. “All signals, as a part of some physical scenario of simultaneity and succession, can reflect other parts of the scenario, instead of indicating meanings of other things different from the signal itself apart from a specific scenario. Facing the world through signals is still directly facing the

1.1 Humans and Signs

9

world. (It is a direct way to communicate with the world through signals.) In contrast, the function of signs is to indicate meanings of other things outside the specific scenario” (Gao 1991: 119). However, it should be acknowledged that there is no reason for humans to despise the activity system of animals, because, from an evolutionary perspective, animals’ signal behavior is indeed linked to humans’ symbolic behavior. Although the activities of animals such as elephants, dolphins and primates have not been tested and further studies are still needed, humans have somehow discovered the potential symbolic activities in the animal world. Even so, humans are much wiser than animals. We can undoubtedly draw a conclusion: “Man is the advanced symbolic animal.” First of all, there is no cognitive mechanism, such as “delayed imitation” and “shifting” in animal behavior; in addition, animal behavior, with no productivity or openness, is a closed system which is mainly maintained by a simple stimulus–response association; moreover, “people can respond to signals and raise the response to the level of symbolic coping,” “and sign activity is to make responses through signs” (Yu 1988: 9; Gao 1991: 118–119). We know that information is a category in which one thing embodies the existence of other things in the form of its own existence. For human beings, both signals and signs are the embodiment of information, but they have different statuses. Signals can reflect the object, which is the internal pragmatics of information. The structural relationship among signals is the syntax of information. The existence of the object being reflected is the semantics of information. The relationships among subject, signal and object are shown in the following figure (Gao 1991: 120). subject

signal

syntax

signal

semantics

½

pragmatics object

object

In the figure above, dotted lines indicate the flow direction of information. Solid lines indicate the path of the subject constructing the object. When it comes to syntax, relations between signal and object are neglected. When it comes to internal pragmatics, the focus is that signal is the embodiment of the object and the meaning of signal remains unknown. When it comes to semantics, relations among signal, object and subject should be all included, emphasizing that the subject can recognize the object only through signals and then interpret the information contained in the signals, from the individual to the general. If “signal” is replaced by “sign,” the relations in the graph above are still valid. A sign, as the embodiment of information, is different from a signal and a phenomenon. The information contained in a sign or a phenomenon is specific and

10

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

it can be raised to the general through man’s knowledge. In a sign, the information which is the meaning of a sign is always general. According to Charles S. Peirce, a sign is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity (Quoted from Hawkcs 1987: 130). Something, somebody and something else are combined to form a symbolic relationship. In this relationship, something as a sign holds the meaning of other things different from it; somebody is the interpretant of the sign; something else is the denotatum. The syntactic, semantic and pragmatic relations of information contained in the interpretant, the sign and the denotatum can be illustrated by the following graph. interpretant (subject)

sign

syntax

denotatum

sign

pragmatics

½

denotatum

Syntax of sign emphasizes relations among signs. Semantics of sign draws relations between the sign and the denotatum regardless of relations between the sign and the interpretant. Pragmatics emphasizes the relations of the sign, the interpretant and the denotatum. Pragmatics includes two parts: one is that sign orients to the denotatum through its meaning; the other is the function of sign’s meaning on the interpretant and the responses of the interpretant. Besides, for the interpretant, sign can express feelings, will and other subjective opinions of the interpretant apart from indicating the object. Obviously, signal and sign are different. We, thus, can draw a conclusion: animals’ behaviors mainly belong to activities of signal, which are reaction to signal; human behaviors are not merely activities of signal and they can raise the response to the level of symbolic reaction.

1.2 1.2.1

Sign Concept of Sign

Now, we know that “sign” is so important to humans that only its concept can help distinguish humans from other animals. Then, what exactly is sign? How should we define it?

1.2 Sign

11

It is not difficult to define sign, but it is always a matter of debate to define it accurately and satisfactorily. To better understand sign, we might as well cite some semiologists’ definitions of it. Ancient Roman philosopher Saint Aurelius Augustinus said, “A sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself.” American philosopher and semiologist Peirce said, “A sign is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity.” Another American philosopher and semiologist Charles Morris said, “A sign ‘stands for’ or ‘represents’ something other than itself.” From the perspective of behavioral sciences, he formulated more precisely for something to be a sign: If anything, A, is a preparatory-stimulus which in the absence of stimulus-objects initiating response-sequences of a certain behavior-family causes a disposition in some organism to respond under certain conditions by response-sequences of this behavior-family, then A is a sign. Italian semiologist Umberto Eco said, “I propose to define as a sign everything that, on the grounds of a previously established social convention, can be taken as something standing for something else.” French semiologist Roland Barthes had a special opinion of sign: As soon as there is a society, every usage is converted into a sign of itself. Japanese semiologist Yoshihiko Ikegami said, “When something acts as a substitute to stand for something else, its function is called ‘symbolic function’ and something which has this function is called ‘sign’.” Soviet linguistic semiologist Zinoviev said, “A sign is something in a specific relation. It contains no thought and it is impossible to contain any thought…the meaning of sign is not embodied by itself but by something beyond itself.” Soviet psychologist Leontief said, “A sign is neither a real thing nor a realistic image and it is a mode which summarizes the functional characteristics of things.” Obviously, it is difficult to give an exact definition of sign from the quotes above, because different ideological foundations and starting points will inevitably lead to different conclusions. The existing definitions of sign can be roughly divided into three types. First is the definition based on phenomenology. Scholars who hold this semiotic theory believe that humans can only make cognition of phenomena, while essence is unknowable or it is the result of human creativity. Therefore, anything that is perceived by human sense organs, if it emits information about other images that cannot be directly observed, is considered as a sign. In other words, a sign is substantial and expressive. The function of a sign is to imbue itself with things and meanings. Sign refers to the information about things and realities. Second is the definition based on logical psychology. Scholars who hold this semiotic theory believe that sign is designed for structures of consciousness or function which have no connection with material of sign. A true sign is considered as a specific and symbolic factor. Sign itself does not exist. It is a part of sign context. Sign context has psychological characteristics. The function of a sign is its materiality, making it closer to things and material realities. Sign refers to the information on the

12

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

audiovisual image of the mode behavior of cognitive subjects. The third definition is a combination of phenomenology and logical psychology based on the dual meaning. Most semiologists use it as a starting point to define sign. They recognize both the materiality and the ideological nature of sign, thus uniting its form and content. Therefore, this thought is dialectically unified. Our understanding of sign in this book is based on the third semiotic theory. For the convenience of research, we might as well give a tentative definition of sign by reference to the definitions above: A sign refers to the material carrier of the equivalent shared information. Our definition includes four aspects of content. In other words, it clarifies four important properties of sign: (1) Sign has materiality. Only if a sign is employed as a material sign, it can be perceived as an information carrier and accepted by human senses. Certainly, material signs can be audio signs, such as drumming on ancient battlefields, banging of saluting guns when welcoming state guests, various sound languages, etc.; material signs can also be optical signs, such as words of different kinds, gesture language, sign language and alternative signs of various written languages (numerical codes, telegrams, shorthand, signals, marks, formulas, etc.). (2) A sign can convey a message that is essentially different from the carrier and represent something else so that it can be fully expanded. Otherwise, it is meaningless and it cannot be classified as a sign. This new information may be something else or an abstract concept, for example, a sickle and a hammer represent the Workers and Peasants Party, and a V shape represents victory. In this way, signs can be used to replace invisible things and inaudible thoughts, thus transcending the limitations of time and space to make abstract concepts supported by concrete things. (3) Signs are conventional and they pass on common information. Signs are conventions made by humans, and only when they are shared by the whole society can they stand for other things (things beyond themselves). As for the range of the conventions, it can be among all mankind, a single state, a nation or a group, and even just between two individuals. Successors and mediators may serve as the transmitter to pass on the conventions for quite a long time. The conventionality of signs is crucial to estimating their attributes. First, there are similarities between signal form and non-signal form. Take the sound “bang,” for example, it could be the crack of firecrackers, shot of guns or pop of tires, but for runners, the “bang” coming from a signal gun is counted as a sign. Second, there is uncertainty between signal form and its content. For instance, if the sign “√” appears on the wall, it might be a random drawing by some kids, which contains no concrete meaning. However, when the same sign is painted on a bunch of packing boxes, it might mean that the cargo has already been counted. Also, when “√” is written on a student’s exercise book, it shows that the answer is right. Third, the convention between the form and the content of signs might have been lost or hidden. Therefore, while looking at carves on

1.2 Sign

13

prehistoric potteries, we can only assume that they may be signs. Moreover, when an underground worker arrives at a contact point and finds the flowerpot on the balcony missing, he would instantly receive a sign of danger, while for outsiders, whether there is or isn’t a flowerpot does not make a sign (Wang 1992: 6–7). (4) Signs are characterized by equivalence. A sign is composed of a form of the sign and its content, which are equivalent to each other. The form and the content of the sign, in this relationship, aren’t presented separately, but combined and presented together. Take a bunch of plum blossoms, for instance. It can be used to symbolize an unyielding character. The plum blossom, in this case, is the form and the unyielding character is the content. The plum blossom is certainly not the unyielding character but only symbolizes it, which cannot be explained that the plum blossom is presented ahead of the concept of unyielding character; on the contrary, the two are combined and presented together. The form and the content of the sign are equivalent, combined and presented together, which makes the bunch of plum blossoms a sign. The plum blossom, merely as flower of a plant, cannot stand for anything other than itself. The form of the sign, in this sense, is meaningless. The plum blossom, as the sign combining the form with its content, is not itself any more. It doesn’t mainly embody the meaning of itself, but the unyielding character which the content refers to, and the sign is meaningful in this sense. So, the equivalence of the form and the content of the sign indicates two things: One is that anything can be a form of a sign and it stands for itself when it is not endowed with a content, but since it can be interpreted as something else other than itself and embody the meaning of something else it stands for, anything has the potential to be a sign; another is that once anything has become a sign, then it is not itself or something else it stands for any more, but embodies the meaning of something else it stands for and exists for that meaning (Gao 1991: 113).

1.2.2

Types of Sign

Similar to the definitions of sign, there is not yet consensus on the types of sign. Various conclusions about the types can be made from different perspectives and on the basis of different aims and principles. We categorize sign into three types as follows to give an outline of sign classification.

14

1.2.2.1

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

Classification Based on Denoting Relationship (According to the Relationship Between Form and Content of a Sign)1

(1) Omen signs Omen signs are signs in a broad sense, or according to sign’ definition we’ve given, they are quasi signs as objects and information connected naturally and organically. In other words, this kind of signs uses concrete and visible objects to refer to the phenomena which have a cause-and-effect relationship with the objects. For example, smoke in the forest signifies bonfire; water surface waves indicate fishes moving; dark clouds foretell a rain; icy windows denote cold weather; waving vanes suggest the direction of wind; liquid in a thermometer moving up means a rise in temperature; a pointer in a barometer riding up and down shows a change in atmospheric pressure. Omen signs, strictly speaking, cannot be defined as signs. They are just symptoms, because characteristics of the omen signs are part of the objects and there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the characteristics and the information, which are necessarily linked to each other rather than being defined by the society. The ability to recognize symptoms comes from experience, not learning. Unlike omen signs, the following types of sign are signs proper, which are independent of objects and phenomena. The connections between the signs and the information, which are established and agreed by people, are subject to social conventions. (2) Induction signs Induction signs are signs that take visual sense, audio sense and other sensory perceptions as information carriers. What distinguishes induction signs from others is that they are uninterruptable, because light, electricity, sound and color, as signs, have no organic connections with the information they carry and there are no reasons and bases for their connections. The signs themselves do not contain any information; it is in the sign context that the information is embodied, so meanings are external to the “signs.” The factory’s whistle and the school’s bell ring are simplest induction signs. It may be hard to tell the differences between the school’s bell ring and those we hear in other situations in their tone, length and volume. But the bell ring, as a sign, bears different meanings: when students are having classes, the ring means that classes are over; when they are during their break time, it marks the end of the break; when the ring is heard in a house, it indicates that somebody is asking to open the door. The induction signs, as assumption signs, may change when the contexts as well as the quantities and orders of the signs are different. Induction signs are very common in our daily life, such as traffic signs (e.g., traffic lights), alarm whistle, alarm sound, sound of firing gun salutes for welcoming distinguished guests or celebrating big days, colored signal flares (indicating the

1

Referring to classification method introduced by professor of Russian Hua Shao.

1.2 Sign

15

start and end of a battle or reporting a success), message trees and shop signs (different numbers and colors carry different meanings). (3) Symbol signs Signs in this category take the characteristics and natures of the information (objects) they deliver as signs represent the objects or phenomena with intuitive images and symbolize abstract natures, characteristics, usages and concepts by related visible and concrete objects. Symbol signs differ from induction signs in that the content of the former is visible and can be vividly explained. Symbol signs are free from contexts to some extent. Similarly, there are no necessary connections in nature between the symbol signs and the objects or the phenomena they stand for, but some associative connections which are conventional. The national emblem is one type of symbol signs, which takes the image of a certain object to represent characteristics of a country. The city emblem and the clan badge carry the same significance with engraved signs on marks, coins or printed signs on banners to convey thoughts. Badges and banners are complex symbol signs while military signs used to distinguish each other, signs wearing on the chest (medals and badges) and other signs are simple ones. Typical symbol signs also include the Cross (Christianity), the hammer and sickle (power of a political party), the five-pointed stars with the Chinese characters of “八一” (Chinese People’s Liberation Army), handshake patterns (friendship), pigeon patterns (peace), etc. (4) Linguistic signs Linguistic signs are different from induction signs or symbol signs in that they, as the fundamental form of communicating and delivering information, are able to be perceived (visible, audible) and carry information. They are the integration of pronunciation (form) and meaning; hence, they are dual in nature. Words or sentences, belonging to communication and information signs, perform referential and predicative functions, which associate language with thought and society. Thus, it can be seen that linguistic signs hold a special position in the world of signs. (5) Substitutive signs Signs in this category don’t stand for objects, phenomena or conceptions, but are substituted for primary signs (natural language signs). As they are auxiliary signs created on the basis of the system of linguistic signs, they can be comprehended as signs of signs or secondary signs, such as signs in mathematics, physics and chemistry (e.g., +, −,  , ), logic operators (predicate calculus) and relation symbols (e.g., E: generality quantifier, 8: existential quantifier, X: conjunction relationship, Δ: disjunctive relationship, :: negative relationship, !: implication relationship, and ← !: equivalence relationship). There are many substitutive signs, such as: metalanguage which refers to a language or a set of signs (sometimes called second-order language) that analyzes and depicts another language (e.g., a word that explains another word or a native language in foreign language teaching); artificial language which is specially made

16

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

for international exchange and composed of grammatical and lexical components of several natural languages (e.g., Esperanto created by Ludwik Zamenhof in 1887, Volapuk by John Martin Schleier in 1879, Interlingua by Giuseppe Peano in 1908 and later by the International Auxiliary Language Association and Novial by Otto Jespersen in 1928); the code systems of abstract signs and signs used in computer programs also belong to substitutive signs (e.g., CCDOS, NCDOS, MS-DOS, ALGOL, FORTRAN, AUTOCODE). From the above five kinds of sign, it can be seen that from omen signs to substitutive signs, the sign process deepens gradually. In general, the more natural the connections between signs and what they represent, the easier the signs can be understood and grasped, which, however, restricts the flexibility to create and use the signs and makes the establishment of sign systems harder. This is why many people do not consider omen signs as true signs, and why the pictograph and semasiography are easily understood but destined to be eliminated. On the contrary, the more lack of organic connections between signs and what they represent, the harder for people to infer what the signs represent according to the signs. The artificiality of sign systems requires people to grasp it through gradual study and practice. Yet since signs free themselves from what they represent, we have more flexibility to establish sign systems.

1.2.2.2

Classification of Objective and Subjective Relations (Based on the Objective and Subjective Relations of Signs)2

(1) Logical classification of objective properties • Paralinguistics A. The relay of language The relay of language is simple recording. It includes letters, codes, braille, sign language, etc. The secret signal of criminals also belongs to this class. For example, one clap stands for A, two for B and three for C. (This can also be classified into cryptographic class.) B. The substitutes for language The substitutes for language are a kind of autonomous code which contains Chinese ideograms, hieroglyphs, pictograph and other forms of signs such as Indian’s smoke signs and argots and slangs of gangs. C. The auxiliaries of language The auxiliaries of language is a parallel code, which includes tones, imitations and gestures like shrug, frown, nod and shaking head. In addition, all this can also be categorized as codes of prosody, kinesic codes and the proxemic code. 2

Put forward by Professor Li Yanfu at First Symposium on Language and Semiotics (Suzhou, China, 1994).

1.2 Sign

17

• Practical codes Practical codes are represented by signals and programs, whose functions are to coordinate actions through instructions, directions, alerts and alarms. Signs of highways, railways, airlines and sea or river transportations all belong to instructions or command signals. Alerts and alarms can be represented through entities such as the tolling of bells, beating of drums, striking of gongs and horning of bugles. The practical application of practical codes is that they can make up for the deficiency of accompany. For instance, if a pilot encounters danger while he/she could not make any contact with the ground, which means that no one can hear his/ her calling for help, see the gesture or the light, then, the contrast and transformation of colors would be needed to pass on information, including the need for water, gas, food or medicine. • Cognitive codes Traditional knowledge is expressed through practical modes coming from known or coded reality while a new cognitive system is built through episteme which is perceived as an analogical form. In cognitive codes, scientific signs are the most typical ones, which can be classified into systematized signs and algorithmic signs according to the two functions—classification and calculation. Flora and fauna in natural sciences, classified in accordance with their correlations, belong to systematized signs. Algorithmic signs convert existing correlations into new ones by algebraic formulas. For example, mathematics, the content of which is independent of any entity and highly abstract, studies specific relations: arithmetic and algebra study numerical relations, and geometry studies spatial relations. Mechanics discusses kinematic relations; physics and chemistry discuss material relations—all the sciences mentioned above use the ideogrammatical notion system, thus they are internationally agreed. • Predictive codes Predictive codes, also called the art of divination, are methods which humans use to communicate with God or predict fate. Four common forms of predictive codes are astrology, lines of palmistry, cartomancy and oneiromancy. In cartomancy, for example, take out 20 cards from a 52-card deck, divide them into five groups with four in each and place the five groups into the shape of a cross. The middle and the bottom groups can tell the present and the past, the top and the right ones can divine the short-term future and the long-term future, and the left one can predict difficulties, respectively. Each group contains a piece of information, and each card has its specific meaning. For instance, hearts and clubs represent good luck while diamonds and spades represent misfortune. Hearts symbolize love and success; clubs, friendship and money; diamonds, treachery and evil news; spades, grudge and failure. Kings, queens and jacks stand for men, women and youth, respectively. The same inference method can be applied to astrology. It holds that interpersonal relationships are homologous with constellations in time and space, which, by extension, can be understood as the harmony of humans with nature. Oneiromancy

18

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

uses cultural symbols and conducts psychological analyses of dreamers to interpret the archetypes of their imagination and subconscious information. Examples of symbols commonly seen in oneiromancy are as follows: lamb—quietness and happiness; goshawk—fire and destruction; stitch—difficulty and danger; donkey— lechery and adultery; ring—marriage or divorce; spider—good omen. The fundamental difference between the predictive codes and the scientific codes is that the former is based on the unverifiable metaphysics between two entirely different phenomena, while the latter is built upon science, which is an axiom system drawn from the observation of reality. It is never a coincident for astrology to become a mode which many other disciplines use to do analyses. The reason is that of all natural phenomena, astrology has established the most stable and strictest system of numbers and space. Alchemy, medicine, physionomy and psychology all resort to astrology, just as linguistics, economics and sociology find their mode from mathematics nowadays. (2) Aesthetic classification of subjective nature Compared with the random and homological logic signs, esthetic signs are iconic and analogical. • Art and literature This kind of signs mainly exists in folk literature like myths and legends. • Symbolism and thematics Such signs are often represented by figures such as numbers, circles, squares and spirals. Temple of Heaven in Beijing is a typical example of integrating various types of graphics. The subtlety of traditional Chinese design lies in the symmetry of rules. The entire altar area is connected by a north–south route; at the south end, there is an altar, and a temple is lying at the north end. In the center of the altar, there is a round dome symbolizing the sky, and around the altar is a square which represents the earth. The hills are divided into three layers, each with three steps. Three multiplies three is nine, symbolizing that there are nine layers in the sky. There are eight pillars around the temple, and they are like the eight orientations in the compass, which also symbolize the eight sides of the earth. • The morphology of narrative Such signs often simplify the plot into formulaic structural elements, of which the story of karma is the most typical. The plot sequence is generally as follows: first, good people are kind-hearted, while bad people take every chance to do evil. As a result, good people are aggrieved and bad people always prevail, but later, the story shall end with that good is rewarded, and evil is punished.

1.2 Sign

19

(3) Social classification of subjective and objective nature • Mark type a. Identification marks, including armband, school emblem, clothing, hairdo, totem, decoration, tattoo, nickname, signboard, trademark, etc. b. Courtesies, including handshake, hat-off, kissing, hugging, bowing, salute, wedding and funeral ceremony, marriage customs and so on. Their characteristics are that they are conventional, and people should follow these customs. • Code type Code sign is divided into protocol, ritual, fashion and game. Protocol is the need of social collective activities, etiquette is the form of collective activities, fashion is the clothing, food, housing, travel habits that prevail in society at a time, and game is a reflection of social life. Their commonness is collective behavior, which is used to deal with interpersonal relations, foreign communications, diplomatic activities and other large-scale activities, such as congress, state visits, international competitions and so on.

1.2.2.3

Classification of Symbolic Thinking Relationships (Based on the Way of Symbolic Thinking)3

Symbolic thinking, simply speaking, is the subject’s activity to use signs in thinking. There are three ways to use signs in symbolic thinking: The first one is to use sign as a tool of thinking operation, through which the thinking activity is carried out and the value of thinking is realized. It has the function of operation. The second is to use sign as a medium of the thinking activity. During the process, sign is used to help thinking achieve further understanding of the object. It can be explanative. The third is to express signs as the result of thinking, for this kind of sign has the function of perception. From the thinking method of signs, we can roughly divide signs into three categories.

(1) Mechanical signs This is to understand signs from the perspective of perceptual and interpretive functions. Such signs are featured by referring to things, that is, representing things, just like a code name. The purpose is to simplify things so that they would be easier to be memorized. Such signs have a mechanical nature for thinking and can partially relieve people’s burden of thinking. For example, in multiple-choice questions of an exam, a, b, c… are often used to represent sentences, and they are mechanical

3

Liu and Yang (1989).

20

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

signs. The content and form of such signs are absolutely identical, and in a certain sense, the relationship between content and form is given by human beings. Humans’ creation of language makes them possess such mechanical signs. “Red light means stop, and green light means pass” has become a habit in people’s lives, and we can understand the information such signs convey from these forms of perception.

(2) Abstract signs From the operational function, we can recognize such signs. They are abstracted from the object class and are not exactly the same as the form of things. These signs are mainly numbers. They, with creative value, can obtain new ideas and new information through physical, chemical and mathematical formulas. For example, given the conditions of CaCO3 + H2SO4, CaCO3 + H2SO4 = CaSO3 + CO2 + H2O is introduced according to the chemical reaction, that is, the mixture of calcium carbonate and sulfuric acid can form calcium sulfate, carbon dioxide and water.

(3) Creative signs They are the result of a symbolic analysis from the perceptual function of signs. This kind of signs is different from the first two types. Its content and form are uncertain, not one-to-one, but multiple, and in other cases, one content might have multiple expressions or one form can express multiple contents. These signs can fully express the symbolic meaning. For example, in English, the word “rose” can represent roses and also love; in Russian, лилия is a sign of both acacia tree and chastity. Another example is that a circle can represent the universe and also peace and happiness. The characteristics of these signs are that they can bring new ideas to the mind, activate the mindset and keep the mind always active. We can say that such signs have creative functions.

1.2.3

Sign Process and Sign Field

We know that everything in the world is a potential sign for human beings. Under certain conditions, these things can be linked to specific symbolic content as symbolic forms, thus functioning as signs. Even things like mountains and water can have different symbolic effects in the eyes of different people. Confucius said, “The wise find pleasure in water, the virtuous find pleasure in mountains. The wise are active, the virtuous are quiet. The wise are joyful; the virtuous are long-lived.” (The Analects of ConfuciusYong) Why? Since the wise appreciate the fluidity of water, water becomes the sign of the special character of “the wise are active”; the

1.2 Sign

21

benevolent appreciate the static state of the mountain, and the mountain becomes the sign of the special character of “the virtuous are quiet.” However, as far as each sign itself is concerned, it is only a self-existing thing. To become a symbol, it must function in a certain process and certain connection. We call this process a “sign process.” In short, the sign process is a process by which something acts as a sign. For example, the radicals of Chinese, “亻, 彡, 灬, 刂,” are only potential signs. They only enter the phrase or sentence after entering the word-forming operation and under the constraints of certain grammar and semantic rules. That is, only when a certain position is obtained can they express a certain meaning and play the role of signs (such as “stop,” “must,” “natural,” “immediate”). In other words, the radicals mentioned above only play the role of radicals in the sign process, and they will be useless if they leave the word-forming operation, certain rules and the communication conditions of the word combination, thus people who speak Chinese can’t make effective communications based on them. Peirce proposed the ternary relationship of sign process: first is the thing that acts as sign; second is the one related to sign; third is the interpretation of it by an interpreter. Later, Morris proposed five relationships based on the ternary relationship of Peirce: V, W, X, Y, Z, in which V is the tendency that X, a method, acts to Y, an object (not yet a stimulation) in W under Z, a condition. In those cases where this relationship is concerned, V is the “sign,” W is the “interpreter,” X is the “interpretation,” Y is the “significations” and Z is the “contexts” in which the symbol appears. Here, the interpretation of a sign is the tendency to react in some way due to the action of a sign. And, the significations of sign are the object that reacts to it in some way due to the action of a sign. Let us take “Chicken Feather Letter,” a typical letter attached with three chicken feathers to imply emergency which once prevailed in China as an example. Provided that a tribe, an organization or a person, in order to convene an emergency meeting, deliver an urgent message or seek an emergency aid, send a “Chicken Feather Letter” and a receiver would make a response on requirements of the letter, “Chicken Feather Letter” represents “V”; the receiver stands for “W”; tendency that the receiver is going to react plays the part of “X” (for example, preparing to participate in the meeting, dispatch troops to assist the campaign or refuse cooperation); object of the method that the receiver adopts is “Y” and situation that “Chicken Feather Letter” must be sent constitutes a part of “Z”. (A case in point is that the Lagu nationality, an ancient Chinese nationality, adopted bamboo chip or wood chip one chi in length, that is, around 33 cm and one cun in width, around 3 cm, with three cutting marks carved on it and three chicken feathers attached to show emergency. And if the circumstance hung by a thread, they would tie a small charcoal to the letter called “letter attached with chicken feather and charcoal”; same things took place in the Va nationality except charcoal which was replaced by chili being attached to the letter to show an extremely urgent occasion.) After a brief discussion about semiosis, we will analyze the semiotic fields, and before that, it is necessary to introduce two pairs of concepts: (1) signifier and signified. This is a pair of concepts distinguishing the form and the content of a sign with signifier representing the form of sign and signified symbolizing the content of

22

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

sign. (2) denotation and connotation. Denotation represents the literal meaning of a referent while connotation indicates the associated meaning of that referent which is also called “secondary denotation.” Let us use “peony” as an example. The denotation of “peony” is a kind of flower named “peony” while the connotation of it symbolizes richness and dignity. Both denotation and connotation represent signified, namely the content of sign. The relationship of each pair of concepts is the key point and the prerequisite of the formation of sign which relies on the following three fields.4

1.2.3.1

Thought Field

Thought is not a kind of tangible matter but a reflection of function of a subject’s brain, and it is a field namely “thought field” formed between the subject and the object. To be more specific, a subject itself cannot produce thought since thought is formed as the brain and the object (also including the subject itself) interact. The interaction is realized on the basis of physiology. During the process, memory of the subject dramatically promotes the formation of thought, for the subject uses marks to think, which acquires further development and becomes creative. Establishing fixed connections between marks and certain contents helps form the signifier and the signified of a sign which is the most economical way to relieve one’s thought. The sign actually becomes the external form of thought full of numerous thought potentials and in return deepens one’s thought. As a result, a relationship is formed: subject!thought field!sign. Signs formed in the thought field are mainly mechanical signs and abstract signs with memory as their basis, and among them, abstract signs account for the dominance.

1.2.3.2

Cultural Field

Cultural field, a system of habit, custom, culture and art, is spontaneously formed during the practice of the subject and the object; therefore, in this field, the subject can connect physical features of the object with human customs to reconstruct the relations between the object and the contents, which means to find the object’s connotation in semiotics. In the case of totemism, ancient people were accustomed to finding a totem animal for themselves and accordingly, that animal was endowed with a new connotation. This case illustrates that the establishment of relationship between the signifier and the signified of a sign is based on cultural customs, and the formation of creative signs and symbolic signs cannot separate themselves from the cultural field.

4

Liu and Yang (1989)

1.2 Sign

1.2.3.3

23

Psychological Field

Psychological field means that the subject builds its connections with external objects through its psychology and physiology. For instance, due to the subject’s sensitivity to red color and his/her fear for skull, red bears the meaning of blood and is then regarded as a sign of stop; skull is treated as a sign of death which is often used as a mark in a deadly dangerous place. Besides, some transformation of the object, advertisements and brands also change with humans’ visual sensitivity, and then an aspect of them will be highlighted and endowed with a form, and through a long period of psychological accumulation and collective unconsciousness, a sign system related with this aspect will come into being. Through the psychological field, the subject finds an external form to express its psychological contents. Since the form and the psychological contents have established an inevitable connection, a sign is then formed. The psychological field plays a dominant role in the establishment of relationships between the signifier and the signified of induction signs and part of symbolic and linguistic signs.

1.3

Language and Sign

1.3.1

The Nature and Definitions of Language

What is language? Linguists have explored the concept of “language” and answered this question from different perspectives, trying to give a perfect definition of the term. Objectively speaking, the definition of language has yet to be determined as consensus needs to be reached. However, various definitions given by linguists reflect the nature of language from different angles, and these definitions provide lots of important references.

1.3.1.1

Language as a Special Social Phenomenon

“Language is mainly a social phenomenon” (Antoine Meillet). “Language is “the system of isoglosses connecting individual linguistic acts.” (Vittore Pisani) (Isoglosses refer to the elements owned by the social members of a certain community at a certain time—author). “It is a social act since it fulfills a need for communication between men” (Joseph Vendryes). “Language is one of those social phenomena which operate throughout the existence of a society” (Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin). Language, in essence, has social nature, as it is a product of human society and unique to humans. Apart from society, there is no language. Language appears when humans need to communicate during their work; moreover, it appears

24

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

simultaneously with human society and abstract thought. Language arises and develops with the rise and development of a society. It dies when the society dies. It is conditioned by and closely connected with the society. Language is a social phenomenon, because it is interdependent with the society and the combination of its sound and meaning is decided by the society. As is known to all, language never exists apart from the society nor can the society develop without language. It is inevitable that humans in society will establish communication to make a living and increase production; thus, they need language as a common tool to communicate and share ideas. But it should be recognized that language is different from other social phenomena. It has natural attribute which means that the material envelope of language is sound, and sound is a natural phenomenon triggered by the objects’ vibration. Sound, thus, is very important to language; it is the material form of language. Voice has social attribute, though it can be classified as natural sound, for not all of the sounds produced by human vocal organs are voices; voice is only a part of human sounds. On the one hand, what kind of sound can be used as voice should be determined by the society; on the other, it is also conventional. For example, there are 30 phonemes in standard Chinese (8 vowels and 22 consonants). These phonemes can be, respectively, composed into syllables which have meanings with four tones being applied. There are 42 phonemes in Russian (6 vowels and 36 consonants) which can match with each other to convey meanings. Obviously, the number of these phonemes is much less than that of sounds produced by human vocal organs. So, sounds as natural phenomena, once becoming materials of voice, will have social attribute and be conditioned by the society. Language has natural attribute but is not a natural phenomenon. Language is not an individual phenomenon either. According to Marxist linguistics, language is created by all members of the society and the development of language is due to the joint efforts by all social members. Language is a communicative tool and communication can only be conducted in social groups. Humans will no longer need the communicative tool without social groups. Besides, humans can learn to talk only when they are living in a society and those who separate themselves from the social groups cannot learn to talk (the case of feral child is a typical example). Meanwhile, it is the society that determines what kind of language humans speak, and humans should use the language of their own social groups. So we can say that language objectively exists in the society and is specifically reflected by the communicative behaviors of all social members. But the individual features of language are not in conflict with the social nature of language. Every individual in the society has their own characteristics in speaking or writing, which can be demonstrated in the following two aspects: firstly, different people have different selections and applications when they use the same language materials, and this is a major feature of an individual language; secondly, the language application of every social member will exceed the scope of existing language materials and language rules at different levels, and then the development and change of the language begins. So, some people say that the individual features of language mark the beginning of language development and change.

1.3 Language and Sign

25

Hence, language is neither a natural phenomenon nor an individual phenomenon but a special social phenomenon.

1.3.1.2

Language as a Unified Communicative Tool of the Society

“The essence of language consists in communication” (Hugo Ernst Mario Schuchardt). “The essence of language is human activity—activity on the part of one individual to make himself understood by another, activity on the part of that other to understand what was in the mind of the first” (Otto Jespersen). “Language is a purely human and noninstinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions, and desires by means of a system of voluntarily produced symbols.” (Edward Sapir). “Language is the most important means of human intercourse” (Vladimir Lenin). Language is universal among humans. First of all, it is not created by a certain class or an individual, but a result of joint efforts by all social members along history. Besides, it does not exist to serve a certain class of humans, because humans in society have to communicate with each other through language no matter which class or stratum they belong to or what kind of career they engage in. So, it can be said that all members of a social community are united by a unified language. In addition, all humans in society, no matter what class status they have, need a certain language to think and then understand the world. Thus, language becomes a tool of expressing and forming thoughts. However, the universality of language does not deny that there exist some languages belonging to particular classes or social groups. This is because under the influence of different living conditions, occupations and class statuses in each social group, there emerge some terms (jargon, argot, bureaucratic language, etc.) used only by a certain group to meet particular needs. However, the language used by particular groups would not affect the universality of language, because the terms are small in number and very limited, and they do not affect the language structure at all. Moreover, the absolute majority of these terms is commonly used in a human language and simply implies certain ideologies. Language is a communicative tool of humans. Undeniably, there are communicative behaviors among animals, and definitely, there exist communicative tools among them. But compared with human language, animals’ communicative tools are inferior, and they are substantially different from human language. The communicative tools (such as sound and action) that animals use to convey information are inborn, instinctive and are not learned from their groups. As long as the animals belong to the same species, their sound and acts are roughly the same and remain unchanged for a long time. However, human language is not inborn but learned in society and community. And the sound, which is used by animals as a communicative tool, cannot be broken down into syllables or morphemes, not to mention vocabulary or grammar; human language, nonetheless, has distinct

26

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

syllables, and it combines voice, grammar and vocabulary together, and changes with the development of the society. In addition, the content conveyed by the communicative tools of animals is very limited. Animal’s language is generally considered to express emotions first and then to express specific things, but it cannot express complicated relations between things at all. Then why can’t animals speak like humans? It is because compared with humans, animals don’t have such a developed brain and abstract thinking ability, nor do they have developed vocal organs or the need for communicative tools resulting from collective work and community life. Therefore, there is no language for animals (humans excluded), and language is a communicative tool for humans only. Language is the most important communicative tool of humans. We know that communicative tools of humans include not only language but also objects and body movements, among which body language, also called silent language, is the most typical and has been studied most. It includes human gestures, poses and facial expressions; it is commonly used to communicate thoughts and express emotions, attitudes and relations, e.g., nodding (agreement), shaking head (disagreement), stamping feet (remorse), gritting teeth (hatred), keeping head up (confidence), stroking head (closeness), shrugging shoulders (helplessness) and shaking hands (reconciliation). But in terms of thoughts expressed, body language involves very limited content, and some abstract and complicated thoughts can only be expressed with words or vocal language. Therefore, from the perspective of social function, language is the most important and indispensable communicative tool of humans; other tools including body language, however, are secondary and auxiliary; they, together with language, serve the society as tools for communication and emotion expression.

1.3.1.3

Language as an Important Tool of Human Thought

“Language is composed of words, while words are voice of signs which represents our thought and express our thought and emotion” (Filipp Fyodorovich Fortunatov). “Language is the direct reality of thought” (Karl Heinrich Marx). In a sense, people actually live in the world of language, not only for human spiritual culture is demonstrated by language, but for people have to name, mark, describe and illustrate the material world by language, which means the material world is also included in the human world of language. In thinking activities, the external world is organized in the form of info code like language; in cognitive activities, especially those in the contemporary age, the external world is recognized by people through being firstly transformed into the form of language. It is only by handling language and information of the object carried by language in thinking activities that humans can have a good command of the essence and rules of the objective world. We can conclude that language and thinking are closely associated; therefore, linguistic research should concern thinking and vice versa. But what the exact

1.3 Language and Sign

27

relationship is between language and thinking is still a significant yet inconclusive question for linguists, philosophers, psychologists and logicians. Opinions about the relationship between language and thinking can be generally divided into three categories: (1) language monolism (also called monism or language as carrier theory); (2) thinking and language theory of independence (also called dualism or language as code theory); (3) theory of language as tool. Language monolists consider thinking as an equivalent of language, pointing out that language is a carrier of thinking and without language as its carrier, thinking does not exist at all. The theory asserts that thinking is a silent language while language is the external expression of thinking which to a large extent impacts people’s thinking and even determines the subject’s outlook on the real world. It is right to some extent because, on the one hand, the subject will master a culture when one learns a language which will inevitably influence one’s way of thinking and cognition unconsciously. Language, as a condensation of ideological achievements, will inevitably exert an effect on people who master this language and thinking. On the other hand, the cognitive achievements of our predecessors are also condensed in a certain form of language which, as a symbol of the cognitive level of our predecessors, will be bound to determine the subject’s cognitive level and the scope of objects one gets to know in real cognitive activities. In this sense, the limitation of language is that of our cognition. This theory, nevertheless, has its drawbacks. Language indeed limits the subject’s outlook on the world and one’s way of thinking and level of cognition to some extent, but only the objective world can determine the outlook of the subject since one’s view on the world must rely on the real world as the criterion. Otherwise, the outlook on the world varies from different nations due to their different languages, and accordingly, the objective knowledge of the world will never be formed, the scientific knowledge cannot be identified by all nations around the world and people will lock themselves within the narrow world constructed by their own language. It is obvious that insurmountable difficulties will come into being if we consider thinking and language as a pair of equivalents. The “independence theory of thinking and language” claims that thinking is distinguished from language; thinking and language are two distinct phenomena; from the viewpoint of embryology, thinking and language are not homologous; thinking still exists even without language code. That is to say, there exists nonlinguistic thinking at various stages of human history as well as in diverse forms of thinking. Therefore, thinking can be separated from language and exist independently or even exist prior to language. There are three grounds for this claim: (1) from the ontogeny of human individuals and species, infants and the primitive human beings or even some animals, though without language, have thinking activities of a certain level; (2) imagery thinking activities do not need the assistance of language; (3) people with aphasia and deaf-mutism have thinking activities of a certain level as well. In light of the language theory, however, it is insufficient to probe into the possibility of nonlinguistic thinking from the ontogeny of human species and individuals per se. First of all, the nonlinguistic thinking activities of infants and the

28

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

thinking activities of early humans can not be equated with the practical thinking activities of modern humans. Secondly, even if the perceptive demonstration activities of infants and early humans are considered as a kind of thinking activity, such an activity is still compatible with the sign language of human beings. And if the human thinking activities are dependent on the internalized form and other variations of the sign language, then the same holds true with the thinking activities of infants and early humans. The sign language, though incomparable with the language used by human beings in terms of both the level and the width of concept transmission, has almost the same function on the initial thinking activities of human beings as what the human language does. Lastly, it should be pointed out that the function of sign language is highly limited. The sign language cannot be used for abstracting and summarizing phenomena of objects at high levels, thus it cannot be directly used for cognitive activities by human beings to grasp the nature of things, either. The human language, on the contrary, has the function of categorizing and abstracting things. And, it is exactly through the function of designation that “we select, out of the multiplicity and diffusion of our sense data, certain fixed centers of perception…It is in these terms that we receive our first objective or theoretical view of the world” (Cassirer 1944: 173–174). Language dualists contend that some forms of human thinking like imaginal thinking never rely on thinking as their basis. We believe it is too absolute because first, the opinion is based on the research result of traditional physiology and psychology: right cerebral hemisphere “controls” emotional and intuitional thinking which never needs the help of language; only abstract conceptual thinking controlled by the left cerebral hemisphere needs that. However, the result has suffered query after the conduct of modern scientific research. A case in point is that Roger Wolcott Sperry, an American brain scientist, found out that the right cerebral hemisphere also has functions of language and thinking by the way of split brain study, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1981. The finding challenged the traditional view on language being only the function of the left cerebral hemisphere and established the fact that thinking and language are integral functions of the brain. The finding illustrates that the two cerebral hemispheres undertake relatively different work, but they restrict, complement and compensate with each other. Both the left cerebral hemisphere and the right one are organs of thinking and pivots of language. A normal man’s thinking and language need the collaboration of two cerebral hemispheres. In addition, people’s thinking can be divided into imaginal and abstract thinking, but the two categories of thinking work simultaneously in human thinking activities since the imaginal thinking arising from language is dependent on language, and more importantly for modern people’s imaginal thinking is formed with certain linguistic cultural background as its basis. On the contrary, any abstract thinking comes into being on the basis of certain emotional visual contents. Imaginal thinking and abstract thinking are interconnected and images appearing with speaking can be either imaginal or abstract in accordance with which way of thinking the subject adopts. Therefore, it is unconvincing that we conclude human thinking is independent from language if we separate the two kinds of thinking and ignore that humans rely on language to think.

1.3 Language and Sign

29

The third ground presented by the scholars who hold the independence theory of thinking is that people with aphasia lose their verbal abilities but they still have certain thinking abilities, which suggests that language is not always the carrier of thinking. The argument simply does not hold water. As mentioned above, modern psychological research indicates that the two hemispheres of the human brain are a unity. The division of labor between the hemispheres is relative as they are in a complex relationship with each other. Furthermore, people’s thinking activities, linguistic or nonlinguistic, are all carried out unconsciously to some extent. It’s impossible for a subject to have sufficient awareness of each step in the thinking process. Its nonlinguistic thinking and imagery thinking, permeated with the function of linguistic thinking, are developed and accepted under certain cultural background. Imagery thinking takes place and gets developed on the basis of the consciousness brought forth by verbal thinking. Nonetheless, it’s impossible for the subject to have conscious awareness of the imagery thinking which is conducted unconsciously. People with aphasia lose their abilities of speech recognition and comprehension but they never lose the linguistic elements in their thinking during the historical development and language acquisition; on the contrary, the linguistic elements will continue playing a role in imagery thinking. The subject simply lacks conscious awareness of them. The above analysis tells us that language dualists explore the relationship between thinking and language out of the real thinking process, thus making their evidences unconvincing. Language monists are mired in difficulties as they simplify the relationship between thinking and language. The study of contemporary psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics provides a new perspective on the further study of the relationship between thinking and language. Based on the mutual transformation mechanism of thought and language, this study offers new ways for people to understand thinking–language relations from a new perspective and serves as the foundation for the third view, “language is a vital thinking tool.” As the product of development and intersection of thinking and language sciences, this view holds that thinking activities need, and even in many cases, rely on language and its transformational forms to process information. The subject, however, does not exclude other intermediary factors in the thinking process. This view offers an interpretation for the relationship between language and thinking. Modern psychology and neurolinguistics propose the basic-level principle according to the analysis of the mutual transformation mechanism of thinking and language. That is to say, thought, at first or at its deepest level, does not come in the form of language, including everyday language or internalized language. It originally exists only in the format of potential semantic and grammatical relations. The formation of thought is in parallel with the expression of language. In other words, thought comes into being with the formation of statements. Researchers of modern psycholinguistic refer to the initial form or the deepest level of language or thought as “semantic recording.” From the perspective of language, semantic recording contains multiple possible language expressions, so it is neither an internalized form of statement nor a ready-made lexical form. It is, at best, a potential or generative

30

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

form of language. From the perspective of thought, the thought in semantic recording is still unclear and not well established. The thought contents of the subject become clear with the deepening of thinking and are gradually expressed in the form of language. One of the salient features of semantic recording is that it uses neither words nor grammatical forms and it is made up of underlying semantic relations, known as “meaning components.” An indispensable stage in the formation of discourse, semantic recording can be transformed into deep syntactic structure by means of internalized language, and finally to surface syntactic structure. At this time, thought also exists in semantic recording in a potential form, and it becomes increasingly clear with the formation of statement. That is to say, with the transformation of semantic recording to deep and surface syntactic structures, the thought contents of the subject become gradually clear and are finally expressed explicitly in extended discourse. Therefore, in the thinking process of modern people, all the sign forms in the process of transforming language recording, the initial form of thought, or semantic recording into external language are qualitatively or quantitatively different from external language. In this sense, human thinking is “imageless” and “wordless” and can be considered as being independent of language. However, semantic recording, containing all kinds of potential associative forms of semantics, is the deepest-level transformational form of language. In the processes of transforming thought into extended language and language into subject inside, various transformational forms of language are at play. In particular, people’s thinking activities always include social contents, which depend on language and enter the thinking process through language. Before they have an understanding and perception of the external world, people must firstly internalize the information of object into thinking by language, making language the necessary source of information processing of thinking. In this sense, thinking depends on language. Besides, the third view, “language is a vital thinking tool,” is correct from the perspective of the influence of language on thinking. That is to say, although the subject does not exclude other intermediary factors in the thinking process, thinking activities need, and even in many cases, rely on language and its transformational forms to deal with information. Therefore, language is a vital thinking tool. In essence, language belongs to the second signal system (according to Pavlov’s theory of two signal systems). The second signal system, however, is not equivalent to language since the former contains much more contents than the latter. Before using the second signal system, humans use the first signal system as animals do. But when people master the second signal system, especially language, people’s learning and thinking are expected to develop at an exponential rate. We can easily talk about something without physically holding it or carrying it wherever we go. The objective world and the subjective world are mapped to the language system and it is language that helps improve humans’ learning and thinking. The world we live in is often divided into three categories: physical world, that is, the objective world, spiritual world and objective knowledge world. We believe that an important language world exists between the spiritual world and the

1.3 Language and Sign

31

objective knowledge world. The language world encodes both objective knowledge and the spiritual world, sparking countless discussion fields. For example, people can talk about dragon or God with ease even though they don’t know whether dragon or God exists or not. Atheists believe that God does not exist while theists believe that he does, but this does not prevent theists and atheists from arguing about the issue. Language is bound to affect thinking since it lies between the spiritual world and the objective knowledge world. Lexically, it is widely known that words for color and snow have influences on thinking. When a language has a certain color word, people who speak that language are sensitive to that color. Similarly, the Inuit are more sensitive to classifications of snow compared with others. The same is true of kinship terms. Chinese has specific terms for mother’s brother (jiujiu in Mandarin) and father’s brother (shushu in Mandarin). English, however, uses the general term “uncle” for both mother and father’s side. It can be seen that Chinese people attach importance to the distinction between shushu and jiujiu. In English, the word “uncle” cannot reflect whether it is mother or father’s brother without explanation. Zhouli (the relation between the wives of brothers) in Chinese is another case in point. Ancient Chinese society had a strict hierarchical system where people were clearly ranked by their age and status. An extended family occupied a dominant position at that time with brothers and their wives living under one roof. The word zhouli came into being at the historic moment, but it doesn’t have an equivalent word in English. Nowadays, with the disintegration of the extended family, the nuclear family dominates the society and therefore the word zhouli has become a historical word. Syntactically, language does affect thinking. Subordinate clauses of cause and condition are placed before their main clauses in Chinese while they are placed before or after (usually after) their main clauses in English. Cause or condition comes in front of result in Chinese while result comes in front of cause or condition in English. In recent years, subordinate clauses of cause and condition are sometimes placed after their main clauses in Chinese influenced by Indo-European languages, but this kind of usage is unnatural for native Chinese speakers. A statistical analysis of sentences in Chinese students’ English compositions reveals that 85% of sentences are started with if-clause and because-clause. It can be seen that language creates a certain pattern for thinking. A correct understanding of the relationship between language and thinking is of great significance and it, to a certain extent, constitutes the “psychological characteristics of the times.” It reveals that language mainly contributes to people’s acquisition of abstract thinking, enabling them to conceptualize and deal with some aspects of the world that remain unknown to them, and to connect to the world. Through the analysis of the relationship between language and thinking, we can draw the following conclusions: Firstly, “language is a picture of the world.” As language emerges and develops, it has become a picture of the world. To understand the structure of the objective knowledge world, we must understand the structure of human thinking as the former is reflected in the latter. To understand the structure of thinking, we should study the structure of language. Secondly, “language is a think tank.” Knowledge accumulated from generation to generation has

32

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

condensed into language, a highly valued vast think tank. Thirdly, “language is a tool.” Language is the tool of all intellectual activities; in particular, cognition itself is inseparable from language (Zhou 1992: 2).

1.3.2

Classification of Language

Language has its narrow and broad senses. Language in a narrow sense refers only to natural language, which is the language we usually use, such as Chinese, English, Russian and Japanese. Language in a broad sense includes natural language, artificial language and formal language. The three types of language reflect the development process of language signs. Natural language refers to any language used in everyday life. It conveys semantic information. That means words and sentences in a natural language express specific contents. Natural language has a rich vocabulary and the semantic information it conveys is plentiful. The information amount of a natural language roughly equals to that of human thought. Another essential feature of natural language is ambiguity. The same form of language can express different contents in different contexts. Therefore, the form of a natural language cannot exactly and uniquely determine its own meaning. Artificial language is a set of language sign systems formulated by humans (After the invention of artificial language, ordinary language is called natural language to distinguish it from artificial language). Natural language has evolved in a natural way while artificial language is constructed in a strictly defined way. The artificial language system also has its own basic vocabulary (including statement variables, connectives, etc.) and grammar (including forming rules that indicate what kind of combination of signs is allowed in the system). The artificial language system gives certain meanings to various artificial signs to describe and depict various forms of thinking. Natural language, as mentioned above, is the most important tool for expressing and exchanging information in human society. However, due to its polysemy and ambiguity, natural language also has its insurmountable disadvantages. Besides, artificial language can also be used to express and exchange ideas. Due to its meaning’s specificity and high degree of abstraction, it has superior advantages in describing thinking forms. Artificial language, of course, like all sign systems other than natural language, is mainly based on natural language, so it cannot replace natural language. Formal language is actually an artificial language, but it does not deliver semantic information (this differentiates from natural language and artificial language). The initial sign and formula of the formal language are only potential signs or strings of signs, which have no meaning. Formal language will have meaning only after being interpreted; under different explanations, it has different meanings to describe different object domains. That is to say, languages in the same form can

1.3 Language and Sign

33

convey different information without ambiguity under various interpretations. This represents a certain return of formal language to natural language at a higher level. In the past, present and foreseeable future of human development, natural language remains the irreplaceable basic form of existence and expression of human thoughts. It is impossible to think that natural language would be replaced by artificial language and formal language completely one day. In that case, there would be no humor and literature and many art forms would lose their charms. However, from another perspective, many precise sciences must eliminate the ambiguity of natural language. Therefore, human language and formal language are tools for scientific research in nature. It is impossible to expect them to be basic forms of passing on messages like natural language. There are different classifications of language. Our research mainly involves natural language, and artificial language and formal language are not research objects of this book, which are only mentioned on special occasions.

1.3.3

Language Is a Sign System

“Spoken expressions are signs of mental impressions, and written expressions are signs of spoken expressions” (Aristotles). “Language is a system of signs that express ideas” (Ferdinand deSaussure). “Language is a symbolic structure. It can express some thoughtful and object-oriented content” (FriedrichKainz). “Language is a system of conventional signs” (Hermann Ebbinghaus). “A language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which a social group co-operates” (Bernard Bloch and George Trager). “Words in our speech are symbols or signs that express concepts or ideas” (Vasily Alekseevich Bogoroditsky). Clearly, language and sign have an indissoluble bond. First, language is not the reflection but a sign of objective things. It has materiality that can be perceived by human beings. Second, the most fundamental characteristic of language, the sign of things, is that there is no necessary and essential connection between language and things it represents. That a thing is represented by a word has nothing to do with the essence of the thing. For example, for the object of human beings, the strokes and the sound of “ren” in Chinese are not decided by human essence. Other nationalities other than the Han nationality of China and other ethnic groups in the world do not use the term “ren” to refer to the object of human beings (men in English; чeлoвeк in Russian). Marx said, “The name of the object is external to the nature of the object.”5 The reason why an object is represented by a certain word is completely a product of the habit of a nation. It conveys a common message, which is a common

5

Das Kapital, People’s Publishing House, vol. 1, p. 58.

34

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

practice. Xunciushad pointed it out over 2000 years ago, to represent a thing by a certain word is completely a product of the habit of a nation. It conveys a common message, which is established by usage. Third, language as a kind of sign can convey a message which is different from the carrier itself. The carrier of linguistic signs is the combination of sound (phonetics) and form (character). They have a certain meaning which can represent invisible, inaudible and abstract things but not the carrier itself. In other words, language has the nature of signification, that is, language can refer to certain things, the nature of things, relationships and so on. For example, the terms “table,” “house” and “person” are used to refer to tables, houses and people in real life. For “China is a country with a long history” and “the population of China is more than that of the USA,” the former is used to refer to “China’s “nature” of “a country with a long history,” the latter is used to refer to the “more than” relationship between “the population of China” and “the population of the USA.” It can be seen that language is the sign of things precisely as it has the nature of referring to things. Finally, language as sign has equivalence between its form and content. That is to say, when people create a language sign, the sound and form are tied together with meaning of the sign and presented in an equivalent manner at any time. Take “ren” as an example, as long as the learner and the user know this Chinese character, the meaning and pronunciation and the style of writing of “ren” can’t be separated from the style of writing of “ren.” Otherwise, it is misused or not mastered, because the modality alone (sound or form) is meaningless, it is at most a potential sign and the meaning alone can never be truly transmitted without carriers and supports.

1.3.4

Language as a Special System of Signs

Since language is a sign system, what’s the role of it among various systems of signs? It’s well known that signs are not unique to humans and the signs used by humans not only refer to language. However, there are fundamental differences between the language and other signs used by humans as well as signs in the natural world. In other words, language is not simply a system of signs, but a special one for its unique characteristics.

1.3.4.1

Arbitrariness

Arbitrariness is a common characteristic shared by all signs, but the arbitrariness of language is endowed with special meaning. It’s generally known that cries of animals that indicate their angers and fears are usually instinctive reactions to external stimuli, which exhibit nonarbitrary connections between sounds and meanings. And, a linguistic sign is just a medium, on

1.3 Language and Sign

35

the basis of which people separate themselves from the surroundings externally and think of themselves as the subject or object of experience internally. Humans, in some sense, don’t respond to things existing and events happening in the physical world, but act according to their own understandings and thoughts. A conclusion can thus be reached that a linguistic sign is basically an independent reality. This independence is the basis of the human language’s arbitrariness which refers to the absence of any necessary connections between sounds and meanings (Li 1994: 9). It is the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure who first introduced the concept of arbitrariness of the linguistic sign. The arbitrariness means that connections between sound or a sequence of sounds and the object it refers to are unmotivated and arbitrary. Language is of arbitrary nature for it needs to convert all the meanings into codes. It is because of the arbitrariness that sounds and meanings could be combined freely. The combinations don’t need to refer to any object in nature, hence the combinations are limitless. For example, snow in various countries is the same thing, but the words for snow (xue in Chinese, cнeг in Russian, snow in English, neige in French, schnee in German) are different, which tells a lot about arbitrariness of the linguistic sign. Arbitrariness of the linguistic sign remained a consensus among linguists; however, many doubts also have been raised with the development of linguistics. We hold that arbitrariness of the linguistic sign is not absolute but limited, which can be understood from the following aspects: (1) Arbitrariness, from the linguistic sign’s origin, is a key feature of the linguistic sign; however, for people who use it to convey his or her thoughts, the linguistic sign is conventional and obligatory. In other words, a linguistic sign is arbitrary only when it comes to the creation process. Once the linguistic sign is used for communication, that is, to refer to a particular phenomenon by the combination of a sound and a meaning, it’s obligatory for people who use it. The obligatory nature means that everyone, from the date of birth, has dropped into a ready-made system of linguistic signs and has no right to demand changes to it but accept it passively. Therefore, arbitrariness of the sound-and-meaning combination and the obligatory nature restricting social members are two aspects of the linguistic sign, and the sound-and-meaning combination cannot be changed casually in the name of arbitrariness. (2) If we suppose that everything originally was named arbitrarily, then most of connections between the name and other objects after that are not arbitrary any more. In morphology, for instance, connections between root words and their derivatives are: читaть (read) !чтeниe (reading), читaтeль (reader), чтeц (reader、reciter), читaльня (reading room); pyка (hand) !pyчкa (handle), pyчник (handicraftsman), pyчницa (handgun), нapyчники (handcuff). It is also the case for proper nouns and brand names: Jacky Cheung, Cheng Fangyuan, Mu Tiezhu; cтaлин (Stalin- “Iron”), мoлoтoв (Molotov“Hammer”), Xpyщёв (khrushchev-“Clay”); Analginum, Imodium, Gastropin, Biochema, IceBears, Ston, Arche, Felice, Olive, Marlboro, Hilton …

36

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

(3) Now that the linguistic sign is invented by human beings, it is inevitably subject to “human” factors in addition to the physical world; therefore, the sign’s arbitrariness is relative. For example, as the linguistic sign is restricted by human cognitive abilities, it can’t be “ahead of its time” and is inevitably dominated by the human spiritual world and mental world; since the linguistic sign is constrained by the ability and the limit of human pronunciation, it can only be produced when sounds are pronounced under the physiological mechanism; in addition, linguistic signs are not directly connected with the objective physical world, rather, they are interrelated through the cultural world of human beings; in other words, the combination of a sound image and a concept is not completely arbitrary or random, but a result of choices made under the influence of national culture. The reason why we only see the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign today is that the effect of cultural mediation was gradually eliminated in the process of the emergence, formation and development of human languages tens of thousands years ago. (4) There are two more noteworthy phenomena concerning arbitrariness of the linguistic sign. First, the relevance of word formation outweighs the arbitrariness in some of the onomatopoeia which imitates the noises of animals and natural sounds, as well as the interjections that express sentiments of speakers. For instance, the same sound is used to represent movements of a clock in all languages: di-da (Chinese), ticktack (English), тик-тaк (Russian) tic-tac (French), ticktack (German), tictac (Spanish), tic-tac (Italian); another example is the sound of cattle: mou (Chinese), мy-мy (Russian), moo (English), muh (German), mo (Japanese) and the like. Second is the phenomenon of sound symbolism which grabs people’s attention. For example, in English, most of words that begin with “gr-” like grudge, gruble, grunt, grouch and so on are used to express dissatisfaction and resentment. Or words that end in “-mp” like bump, dump, thump, stamp, etc. are mostly used to denote the sound of a heavy object slamming onto the ground (Tanaka 1986: 11).

1.3.4.2

Stability

Stability means that language can only be developed according to its internal rules and remains relatively stable and cannot be changed arbitrarily when it becomes a generally accepted communication tool. As language is a tool for human communication and has been passed on for generations, if it is changed arbitrarily, it will be hard for people to grasp it and communicate with each other. This peculiarity of language is not shared by other artificial signs. For example, military codes would be abolished at once and reset if leaked, and military passwords could be changed at any time. For language, however, this way does not work as language’s stability is determined by its social nature.

1.3 Language and Sign

1.3.4.3

37

Evolubility

Although language is relatively stable, it is not immutable as it develops with the change of society. For instance, the ancient Russian in prehistoric time not only had the form of singular and plural but also dual. The dual and numeral are used together (or alone) to specially refer to two things or a pair of things (nouns, adjectives, pronouns and verbs all have the form of dual). The reason for the dual’s existence in ancient languages is that people’s abstract thinking abilities at that time were at a lower stage. Therefore, ancient people could not invent “abstract plural” in modern languages when they expressed the concept of “numeral” but used “concrete plural.” Judging from literatures, the “dual” system in the ancient Russian disappeared between the thirteenth century and the fourteenth century. For another example, in ancient Russian, the interrogative pronouns include “кътo” (who) and “чьт” (what). Historically, “кътo” and “чьтo” originally are made up of the ancient roots of the question “к-” and “ч-” and demonstrative pronoun “тo.” Initially, this structure is equivalent to “Ктoэтo?” (Who is this?) and “Чтoэтo?” (What is this?) in the modern Russian. The ancient roots “к-ъ” and “ч-ь” (ч-ь is the result of post-tongue sound changing into the softened “к-ь”) are two different variations of the same root, which come from the ancient Indian language quo-/Qui-. Originally, the two words were only distinguished by weakened vowels (also called ultra-short vowels), and then the first qualitative softening law (“кь”>”чь”) appeared. Later, the weakened vowels disappeared, thus forming the present-day form of “ктo” and “чтo” form (Yang 1988: 336–337). The evolution of language is gradual, that is to say, it is slow and not easy to be noticed by people, and this change is based on the internal laws of language. Because language is a social phenomenon of historical development, it has to adapt to the communicative needs of members of different periods. Evolution is the embodiment of this communication needs. On the one hand, it has to change to meet the needs of communication; on the other, it cannot change too fast; otherwise, it is not easy for all members of society to master. This is the essence of gradual change and evolution of language, and other signs will not “naturally” change.

1.3.4.4

Universality

Universality depends on the role and the use of linguistic signs. Other symbolic systems are used to convey limited information, and in many cases, they are only used to convey and interpret known information, so they can only serve as aids. However, language is an all-encompassing means of not only transmitting and storing information but also generating and forming thoughts and psychological relationships and volition act. The application range of other symbolic system is narrow and limited, while language is a universally useful communication tool that serves people and all areas of society. Variants of linguistic form and meaning ensure the flexibility and applicability of language in various communicative situations. In addition, in terms

38

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

of time, language comes into being with the emergence of human society and develops with the society, and the human society is always inseparable from this communication tool; in space, there is the existence of language where there are human activities, and people use linguistic signs in social life any time any where.

1.3.4.5

Primacy

From the perspective of the formation process, linguistic signs are different from the generally and artificially created sign systems. Because language is a direct manifestation of thoughts (ideas), language constitutes the first material of the latter, that is, language is the first substance of thought and meaning, and other signs are substitutes for a linguistic sign. Everything in a language is established in the process of its application; however, the artificial sign is different. It is created on the basis of language by people through certain procedures. It is the secondary sign which needs to be explained through language.

1.3.4.6

Systematicity

The linguistic sign is not a messy pile of things. It is systematic, and its components are in a certain regular relationship, that is, its various elements and units are opposite to each other, different from each other, and interconnected and mutually constrained, and form a system that combines sound and meaning. The systematic nature of linguistic signs is reflected in the regular connection between speech, grammar and vocabulary, and the voice, grammar and vocabulary itself are self-contained. The systematic nature of language is determined by the essential characteristics of linguistic signs as a communication tool, because if it loses its systematicity, people cannot master the language and use it to communicate. The linguistic sign system is similar to a “device” that produces sentences in which components are organically assembled according to their function. They form a strict structural system from small to large and low to high. The hierarchical structure of the language system “device” is generally set as follows: The bottom layer is made up of a set of phonemes. There are only dozens of phonemes in each specific language. For example, there are 42 phonemes in Russian, including 6 vowels and 36 consonants. It is said that Mandarin has 29 phonemes, of which 7 are vowels and 22 are consonants. The morpheme layer is the component of word formation; the third layer is the lexical one composed of morphemes; the fourth layer is the sentence composed of words; now the level is further expanded and there appears the hypersentence layer and the textual layer. The “device” extends on the higher level based on the lower level and it is combined regularly. It is a process of expansion from small to large. Every level of linguistic signs has its certain category and combination rules, which constitute the signs according to their own different relationships and rules.

1.3 Language and Sign

1.3.4.7

39

Compatibility

(1) Compatibility of multiple elements The communication led by linguistic signs manifests a complex relationship. More explicitly, linguistic signs are composed of compatible multiple elements rather than a single element in the course of language activities. For example, on a special occasion, the following elements should be contained: a speaker, listener(s), message, referent in the conversation (Broadly speaking, including all things such as concrete objects, people, animals, abstract concepts, actions, states, properties.), word or sentence (medium of certain information) and situation (restricted by specific time or space), etc. (Tanaka 1986: 21). (2) Compatibility of multiple functions Generally speaking, the linguistic sign has extremely complicated functions. Connected with people’s physiological and psychological activities, it plays the role of pronouncing and functions as the material stimulus in the secondary signal system. Related to the objective world and social life, it can not only mark objective things but also give full play to its communicative function. Firstly, communication is the most essential function that can be embodied in most language activities. Even in primitive times, human beings, for surviving, had to work with their partners to defend themselves from natural disasters, outside clans and beasts. Thus, even simple communication needed to rely on language whose importance is undoubtedly more prominent in the complex structure of modern and contemporary society: Humans convey their will and various kinds of information to their partners through language, and at the same time, they can obtain what is necessary for their survival and get help and assistance from their companions. Secondly, the linguistic sign has a narrative function, which is a kind of communicative function related to objective information, that is, information about the referent. Moreover, when the linguistic sign acts on the listener and causes some action or language reaction, it will show an excitation function. (Imperative sentences and interrogative sentences have this function.) There is another function called expressive function. It mainly refers to the subjective expression of the speaker’s emotional state and physical feelings. In a broad sense, it also belongs to the category of communicative function. Sometimes, even if there is no listener, the language activity is still valid. Many exclamatory sentences are used in this way and examples are: whether there are listeners or not, the person will say, “How beautiful it is!” when witnessing beautiful scenery; when encountering pain, he will say, “How painful it is!” In addition, the linguistic sign also has a special function, that is, the “phatic communion.” Compared with the transfer of specific content, this function aims to clarify people’s relationship in daily life so that the subsequent dialog can be freely expressed in a timely manner. Examples are: the initial greetings between

40

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

acquaintances, the topic of weather often mentioned in the beginning of a conversation between two Britons; when making a phone call, we use the expression (do you hear me? Hello) in the dialog to be aware if the person on the other end of the phone is listening or not; even if it does rain in the morning, people will still say “Good morning!”; while hearing the greeting “How are you?”, people reply with “Fine, thank you.” even though they are in poor health. (3) Compatibility of multiple natures of linguistic signs From the perspective of the sound–meaning relationship and functional nature of signs, linguistic signs also have the characteristics of indication, symbol and inductive signs. For the objective world, with the functional nature of the symbolic signs—“representation,” linguistic signs represent external phenomena and things in an intuitive image. Thought is a reflection of objective phenomena, while language is a direct reality of thought. For speakers, linguistic signs have the functional nature of indication—“expression.” In addition, interlocutors are inspired by stimulation of the sense of hearing or vision adopted by linguistics signs, which have an obvious functional nature of inductive signs.

1.3.4.8

Multi-Meaningfulness

In fact, multi-meaningfulness is also regarded as one of the manifestations of linguistic signs’ compatibility, that is, compatibility of multiple meanings. Signs beyond the linguistic range tend to present unicity, which means that no additional explanation is allowed to be attached to the content. Its direct and unique “meaning” does not change with the specific environment in which it performs its functions. For instance, a driver can only treat the red light as a stop sign under any circumstances. Sometimes, a sign might be stipulated to possess two “meanings.” In this case, we do not think that it’s a polysemous sign, but think they are two different signs. Because these two different “meanings,” though both related to the same form of expression, have no inherent commonality. For example, firing a pistol represents the start of a race or an attack on the enemy stronghold. It refers to two distinct signs called homophones rather than a polysemous sign. In addition to proper nouns and pure terms, most linguistic signs are polysemic. Besides, there are certain organic connections between signs (in phonetics, grammar, word-formation, semantics, etc.), which can be considered as one of the main features of linguistic signs in terms of meaning. Take the words in linguistic signs as an example. Words have the characteristics of summarizing an object’s features; meanwhile, some features contained in a concept are similar to those of other concepts, which lay the foundation for polysemy of words. For example, in addition to the meaning of head, the Chinese word “tou” can be explained as “leader,” “mind” and so on, because the three concepts contain the common feature of “the highest or foremost part of things.” Take the English word “hand” as another example. “Human hand” and “animal’s front paw” are the original meanings of the word “hand,” to which transferred meanings of

1.3 Language and Sign

41

“craft” and “technique” in the fourteenth century and “craftsman” in the sixteenth century were added. Then it is expanded to the meaning of “human hand,” such as a new hand (novice) and an old hand (veteran). And “hand” can refer exclusively to “crew.” With the development of words in the fourteenth century, the word “hand” had acquired the meaning of “calligraphy” and “handwriting.” After the invention of the clock, it obtained the meanings of “pointer.” Besides, other transferred meanings related to “hand” were generated, such as “on all hands,” “material at first hand.” Multi-meaningfulness is an important feature of linguistic signs. With a long history, words frequently used and often appearing in different contexts have much more meanings. For example, the Chinese verb “da” (literally “hit”) is explained by 23 meanings in the Modern Chinese Dictionary; the English word “take” has 28 meanings in Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English; 26 meanings of the Russian word идти (go) are marked in the Dictionary of the Russian Language (Sergey Ivanovich Ozhegov). The relations among multiple meanings of words are complicated. According to different situations, ranging from free meaning to restricted meaning and from lexical meaning to grammatical meaning, meanings of a polysemous word can usually be divided into seven categories: free lexical meaning, restricted lexical meaning, restricted grammatical meaning, lexical–grammatical meaning, grammatical meaning, idiomatic meaning and semi-idiomatic meaning.6 Strictly speaking, the concept of polysemy is synchronic, which doesn’t refer to the diachronic evolution of the meaning of a word. In one historical stage of language development, if a word has a meaning of A and loses it and produces another meaning of B in another historical stage, we should not say that the word has polysemy because it obtains the meaning of A and B. For example, the Chinese expression “chufen” meant “dispose” and “handle” in the Six Dynasties (222–589) and Tang Dynasty (618–907), while it means “punish” in modern Chinese spoken language. For the poem, The Peacock Flies Southeast, if someone misunderstood the sentence “Every disposal should be determined by my brother” into “My brother will punish me as he wishes,” we would think that he wasn’t aware of the evolution of the word’s ancient and modern meanings rather than the polysemy of the word.7 Though most words in a language obtain multiple meanings, they won’t lead to misunderstandings or prevent people from communicating. The reason is that the word is not isolated in a language and its exact meaning can be defined in a certain language environment (context and situation when speaking) where the polysemy of the word will be eliminated. Namely, although a word has many meanings, only one meaning of it is actually realized when it is used and the rest meanings are in a potential or suppressed state.

6

Wang (1983). Zhang (1982).

7

42

1.3.4.9

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

Productivity

The amount of information that can be sent or received by most animals is extremely limited. American scholar Jean Aitchison once cited such an example: Although some species of male grasshoppers have a mating information system, from which only six types can be selected, and they may be translated into the human language as follows: (1) I live in a happy life; (2) I’m willing to sacrifice myself for love; (3) You have entered my area; (4) She is mine; (5) Let’s fall in love; (6) How wonderful love is! For grasshoppers, there are only these pieces of information and a similar restriction on which piece is used to transmit information in which environment (Aitchison 1986: 16). That is to say, the information that animal “language” can transmit is fixed and restricted by stimulation. Their communicative languages and meanings are numbered. This kind of limitation does not exist in the human language, because linguistic signs are creative or productive in nature. It is not until a person learns all the sentences that he can use the language freely. Children can make sentences and talk to each other before they learn the language to a certain extent and master limited language rules and materials. Just like mathematics, once people learn Arabic numerals and signs, arithmetic operation rules and methods, they can perform mathematical operations. Similarly, those people who speak all kinds of human languages can speak out what they want to say in any time. They can also make sentences that they have never heard or said even under the most unsuitable environmental conditions. Actually, the productivity of linguistic signs is what the transformational-generative grammar, produced by the American scholars such as Noam Chomsky, always emphasizes. Although one language may contain tens of thousands of words, and the number of words is limited, the permutations and combinations formulas are limited. The number of sentence is not limited, and new sentences could be made continually and endlessly. One of the reasons is that some parts of the word formations could be used repeatedly; the other is that a word could be used more than once in one sentence, which is the result of recursiveness.

1.3.4.10

Openness

The openness of the linguistic sign is closely connected with its creation. The openness of the linguistic sign means that the structure, content, meaning of a language and people’s understanding of it may contain infinite possibilities. We have known the limits of all languages’ expressive methods (pronunciation and words), and while following certain rules or customs, a language could generate new sentences of varied kinds. On some special occasions, new words could be produced to express new things and the new characteristics of the things, which mean that people could produce new information constantly by means of language, and every different sentence contains different meanings. Besides, a language could also break up the conventional connections among morphology, pronunciation and

1.3 Language and Sign

43

semantic meaning and then make new connections for them; in this way, new meanings could also be generated. In addition, the rhetorical devices people use such as morphology, simile, metaphor and metonymy will also make a language break up its conventional meanings and endow it with new meanings. They can make language an esthetic object, possibly making it an art. Meanwhile, once language is expressed, people will understand it in different ways. So, the meaning of the language is dispersed in people’s open understandings. From the perspective of epistemology, human experiences are extending deeply and broadly, and new phenomena are discovered constantly. Generally, the new phenomena can always be narrated by existing concepts and ideas; unaccountably, people also want to explain them in this way. The openness of the linguistic sign determines that it is possible for people to do so, using existing concepts and ideas to explain new experience, while the necessity of it is determined by situations (Wang 1994: 11). In fact, every word, used by different people, in linguistic signs will be developed into different marginal meanings. Thus, one word will share different meanings, some of which are core and open, while others are accessory and hidden. The reason why one uses this word rather than another in speaking is that he is not only influenced by syntagmatic relation, but also by paradigmatic relation. When listeners receive one word, their understandings of this word will also be influenced by these two parts. Hence, different contexts will give rise to the openness and creativity of linguistic signs. Taking the lexical meaning as an example, now we will briefly discuss the openness of the linguistic sign. The signifier of one language means sound image, while the signified of it refers to the meaning and object it represents. Generally, the signifier and the signified share fixed correspondence, so the meaning and the applied objects of linguistic signs are clear. However, a linguistic sign always has derived meanings no matter at the level of vocabulary or sentence. It is usually called innovative use of language, for example, “overtone” and “implication.” When we use one language creatively, we just transfer the conceptions of one specific field to another. The essence of transfer is considering the previous signifier and signified together as the new signifier to help a language get new meanings and remove some old ones. (It is often said that the individual is a part of society, and here, the concept of “part” originates from “molecule” in chemistry. In this sentence, it not only retains the basic connotation of the concept of molecule in chemistry but adds a new meaning to illustrate the role of individuals in society.)

1.3.4.11

Stratification

Stratification is the biggest difference between human language signs and animal “language.” The stratification demonstrates that linguistic signs, in order to be understood, can be decomposed according to different levels and can enable humans to express infinite information with limited language materials. Comparatively speaking, animals’ communication can only convey the general

44

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

meaning of a number of media (e.g., the approaching of enemy; the prey or food at a certain place); it is a vague signal that cannot be decomposed; the relation of subject–verb–object and language units cannot be distinguished. To put it simply, stratification can be comprehended as articulation or discreteness. Animal language always expresses a certain meaning through shouting, in which the language units cannot be analyzed or combined. The sentences made according to language rules can be decomposed into basic units. Therefore, human language is a discrete sign system. For example, when we say the sentence “ПeтpлюбитAннy” (Peter loves Anna) in Russian, people who speak or understand Russian can immediately know that there are three units (or three words) in this sentence: (1) Пeтp (Peter) refers to the name of a man; (2) любить (loves) describes the emotion of the man; (3) Aннa (Anna) is the woman with whom the man falls in love. This kind of division is called the first division of language. Besides this division of the meaningful units, all human languages that we have known can be divided into smaller phonetic and literal units. Let’s take the above as an example, Пeтp can be divided into [п-j-o-т-p] or П-e-т-p; любит into [л-j-y-б-и-т] or л-ю-би-т; Aннy into [a-н-н-y] or a-н-н-y. The parts in the brackets are generally named phonetic or phonemic units; the parts without brackets are called alphabetic units. Different from the first division, the second division has no obvious feature of meaning. Language production, from the perspective of the information theory, refers to the process of compilation. And, the stratification of language is reflected in the linguistic compilation mechanism. For example, the language meaning, based on the “mode of meaning,” can be divided into surface and deep meaning, or simile and metaphor meaning, etc. Roland Barthes, Louis Hjelmslev, Alfred Tarski and other linguists have noticed the intertwined multilevel phenomenon of language meaning. A verbal expression with a specific meaning can signify another verbal expression that expresses a certain meaning. And, the latter may relate to a third verbal expression or, in turn, relate to the original one. Hence, an intertwined verbal expression system comes into being. Moreover, to avoid causing confusion, linguistic semioticians have distinguished the signifier and the signified. The signifier can denote the signified, and the combination of the two can form a new signifier to denote the new signified, thereby developing a hierarchical structure for the linguistic sign system. This also holds true with the structural model of language. In a complete sentence, the whole sentence is a big structure in which each part has small clause structures with the same form. That is to say, the stratification of language structures can be understood that the bipolar structures of linguistic signs are made layer by layer. For example, the respective format clusters of gender, number and case can be combined into a higher-level format cluster, namely the format cluster of noun declension, which can also be combined with verb declension to make a higher-level format cluster… until general grammar format clusters are formed. In a word, as an important feature of the linguistic sign system, stratification allows us to use limited language materials to express limitless content. In other

1.3 Language and Sign

45

words, linguistic sign system is an economical, effective and flexible hierarchical device.

1.3.4.12

Sociality

The following can explain the sociality of linguistic signs. First, language is a social existence, which closely depends on the society. It is known that language is a social communication system formed and developed with the progress of human practice. It is not the product of natural outpouring of human emotions or the instinctive behavior of human beings. Language is the product of human practice and has the nature of sociality. And, its sociality shows that the existence and development of language are not restricted by individuals’ will. On the contrary, language always preexists individuals; after individuals’ involvement into some language system, people could get into the system of social relationship remained by these signs and understand their own status and roles in this system. That is to say, since its sociality, language could introduce people to the complicated net of social relationships and participate in people’s social activities. From the perspective of language’s development, the social restriction on language is extremely clear. As human groups enlarge, the service target of language and the scope of language use also expand increasingly. In the wake of the union and dispersion of social groups, language unifies and divides. At the same time, contacts among different social groups could also bring about interaction and assimilation. In this aspect, language records, which show that language once had their own prime time in history, could serve as evidences of the language’s sociality. These language records are what people call “dead languages.” Benefiting from the recorded words, we can see these “dead languages” nowadays. Actually, these languages have no longer existed. For the social groups who use these languages have not existed, they have disappeared. For example, although we can see sentences or articles in Xianbei language (one language spoken by Xianbei nationality that ones lived in northern China) on the Sui Book: Jingjizhi, we could not know what the Xianbei language really is. From this, we can learn that the existence of language depends on the society. Currently, the various languages spoken in the world are indeed the result of being restricted by different societies. Second, language is dependent on society. On the one hand, no matter in the first day of human society or in its whole development process, language represents a prerequisite for people to organize their social lives and is also the main momentum to promote social development. As a tool for exchanges of thoughts and communication, language can help people do productive work, adapt to the nature, transform the society, develop culture and impart knowledge. As a matter of fact, language is a treasury conserving all the labor experiences of human society. It consolidates and records all the past experiences of ancestors, through which descendants can learn the accumulated knowledge through ages. Considering this, we can understand that language is not only the essential tool for keeping the modern society going but also the indispensable tool for people to master and

46

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

develop the achievements of ancestors’ and other people’s thinking activities. On the other hand, language shows cultural activities in a most typical way, so we can say that language is the “mode” of culture. Language not only reflects the achievements of human practice and cultural activities but also the values, esthetic concepts and ways of thinking of people engaged in such practical and cultural activities. For example, although the word “xiong” in Chinese and the word “elder brother” in English share the same object, they mirror different cultures, thus representing different meanings. According to these characteristics of human language, modern semiotics put forward the important proposition—“culture is language.” In fact, cultural traditions and values of all nations are dependent on their languages. To a certain extent, people who have learned and mastered one language have mastered the cultural value system of that language community. When people learn about the outside world by one certain linguistic system, cultural traditions, values and ways of thinking hidden behind this language will in turn have an effect on their understanding and transformation of the world. Third, from the perspective of the meaning relations of language, on the one hand, meaning refers to the case where concepts are expressed in language by social members under social communication and formed in special social conditions. The phonetic section of the linguistic sign is provided with social properties (e.g., different nations have different ways of pronunciation.) and its semantic section also possesses sociality. Since the combination of sound and meaning depends upon social conditions, it necessarily takes on social features. On the other hand, language can be regarded as the sign of an objective thing and has symbolic relations with the object it refers to as a signifier, as it consolidates and expresses those thinking products that can reflect and depend on the objective things in language. To put it another way, it reflects those objective things through thinking and indirectly becomes a sign of them. Thinking is inherently a social phenomenon; the relationship between language and thinking takes the composite of phonetic and semantic social phenomenon as a symbol of thinking. Therefore, linguistic signs obviously bear social properties.

1.3.4.13

Dependability

The dependability of linguistic signs can first be manifested in its combination of pronunciation and semantic meaning, which means certain pronunciation and certain semantic meaning can be combined into linguistic signs. Once these linguistic signs are accepted and used by social groups, the pronunciation and semantic meaning will have an interdependent relationship. Therefore, we have to understand the arbitrariness of linguistic signs clearly and correctly, which does not mean people can use language randomly or speak whatever they want. Besides, once a linguistic sign enters into the sign system, it will be immediately restricted by the

1.3 Language and Sign

47

other members; no one can change the thing or phenomenon it represents. If someone changes it at will, inevitably chaos will come (Liu 1984: 31). Referring to this, we can find reasonable explanations from one of China’s ancient philosophers Gongsun Long. He said, “It’s possible to call “that thing” “bi,” a unique word only meaning “that thing,” and it’s also possible to call “this thing” “ci,” a unique word only meaning “this thing”; however, it is not possible to misuse “bi” for “this thing” or “ci” for “that thing” since they are illogic.”8 Dependability is also reflected in the correlation and mutual constraint between various language components. Take the following three sentences as an example: (1) Toтдeнь/нaвceгдaocтaнeтcявмoeйпaмяти. (That day will always remain in my memory.) (2) Oн/нaвceгдaocтaнeтcявмoeйпaмяти. (It will always remain in my memory.) (3) Toтдeнь, кoгдaявcтyпилвпapтию, /нaвceгдaocтaнeтcявмoeйпaмяти. (That day I joined the Party will always remain in my memory.) The three sentences share the same sentence structure—subject + predicate. Notably, the number of words in each sentence component makes no difference to the basic sentence structure, that is to say, counting the number of words has nothing to do with the language structure. Anyone who learns a little about a foreign language knows that, when you need to change a sentence into the past tense, it is ridiculous to add the past tense suffix “-л” to the predicate only after a certain number of words (maybe you will make some grammatically correct sentences in doing so, yet more likely you will create some absurd ones). Therefore, if you fail to understand the internal structure of a sentence, then you cannot create a new one without any grammatical errors, and that is the language effect—structure dependent, which means that to understand a sentence, you first have to understand its internal structure rather than just see how many words it contains. Nonetheless, this characteristic of dependability is uncommon in animal communication as most animals’ information systems lack it.

1.3.4.14

Formulability

The formulability of linguistic signs can be seen from two aspects. On the one hand, materials are used in a language with a fixed mode. Since productivity of language is always emphasized, people probably misunderstand that language has no nonproductivity. But actually, it’s not true. Some speech one has grasped in a way since his childhood has been used repeatedly, such as greetings used when meeting and parting with an acquaintance everyday (Кaк дeлa?/How are you?—Hopмaльнo!/I’m fine! Cчacтливoгo пyти!/Have a safe journey!— Cчacтливo ocтaтьcя!/Take care of yourself!), idioms (идиoмa), proverbs

8

Pu (1974).

48

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

(пocлoвицa). Some modern slogans and commercial terms remain unchanged when they are applied constantly. On the other hand, internal relations within the linguistic system comply with certain patterns. Human language can be divided into several items, such as vocabulary—chair, seat; grammar—“s” in the word “chairs”; voice—[s], [i:], [t] in the word “seat,” all of which are not disordered but strictly following a certain pattern (pattern, мoдeль—the systematic arrangement of language components according to the linguistic laws). For example, there are two arrangements for the voice of four letters a, b, s, t in English, namely bats and stab, but other arrangements, like sbat, abts, stba, are not valid (These can be pronounced, whereas they are too far away from the rules of sound sequence of English to be created) (Aitchison 1986: 17). Besides, take collocations as an example. They are not only restricted by grammatical patterns (dominance relationship), but by meaning and logical patterns. For instance, кpaйний (distant), an adjective in Russian, can be collocated with many words: кpaйний дoм (a distant house), кpaйний cтoл (the table on the side), кpaйнee дepeвo (the most distant tree), but кpaйнee мope (the distant sea) or кpйнee нeбo (the distant sky) is false, for it is inconsistent with facts. Words with contradictory meanings can be collocated in order to use oxymoron (oкcюмopoн), such as Живoй тpyп (The Living Corpse), Oптимиcтичecкaя тpaгeдия (An Optimistic Tragedy), Бeзвины винoвaтыe (The Innocent Sinister). Collocation sometimes is also limited by linguistic rules and patterns, for example, the Russian word пoтyпить, meaning moving something downwards, seems to make sense when used together with pyкa (hand) and нoгa (foot) but actually it can only be followed by гoлoвa (head), глaз (eye), взгляд (look), взop (sight), etc.

1.3.4.15

Displacement

The information conveyed by a great majority of animals is nothing more than a direct response to the situation they are exposed to. In other words, signs used by animals are always associated with a specific ecological environment outside which they do not represent any information. For example, a bird utters its danger cry only when danger is present, but it cannot send out a similar message about a peril which is not present in the immediate environment. Human linguistic signs are quite different from animal signs because the former can be free from any direct connection with the environment, that is, they are not constrained by time and geographical environment and can communicate about things that are not immediately present. This rare linguistic phenomenon is called displacement. For instance, human beings can talk about the past and the present, predict the future and even speak of anything by means of languages.

1.3 Language and Sign

1.3.4.16

49

Economy

Anyone in the world has the instinct of attempting to maximize the efficiency of work with the least amount of labor, which also affects people’s linguistic activities. Simply speaking, we can see in any language the common phenomenon that some obviously repetitive elements are omitted. For instance, when three or more words (sentences) are put together, it is usual to use the typical conjunctions like и(and) or или(or) between the last two words but to omit them elsewhere: Ceгoдня нa coбpaниe пpишли пepвaя,втopaя,чeтвepтaя и ceдьмaя гpyппы. (Classes One, Two, Four and Seven attend the meeting today.) It is also true for the short answers to interrogative sentences: (Russian)—Бyдeшь ли ты cмoтpeть фильм ceгoдня вeчepoм?/Do you want to watch a movie tonight? – Дa,бyдy./Yes, I do. – Did you see Tom last night? – Yes, I did. In addition, there are two levels of syntactic representation, a deep structure and a surface structure, in transformational-generative grammar. The abstract deep structure generally represents the semantic relations among elements in a sentence in a complete manner, while most elements that are supposed to exist do not appear or are omitted in the surface structure. For instance, the subject (you) in the deep structure of a common imperative sentence, the unspecific actors who do not appear in the surface structure of a passive sentence (I was seen < by Walter >; The building has been built < by the worker >) and the repeated elements in the deep structure of a compound sentence (Jack bought cigarettes and Jill < bought > cookies; Evan reads a book and Peter < reads > a letter) are usually all omitted.

1.3.4.17

Colorability

What distinguishes the linguistic sign from other signs is that it is not completely objective, but usually expresses a touch of subjectivity. For instance, the linguistic sign can be featured with emotional expressiveness, which presents certain subjective emotions, feelings and attitudes of speakers and writers. The emotional expressiveness can be divided into three aspects specifically: (1) emotive, like the words mommy, baby, honey and scoundrel; (2) commendatory and derogatory, like the talented, dearest and clotheshorse; (3) expressive, such as motherland, future, villain, wife and bruiser (Lv et al. 1988: 32). The linguistic sign can also have functional style, or stylistic coloring, which indicates the sphere of language units, that is, to which fields the units are only and mainly applied. The functional style can be specifically classified into: (1) oral language style, such as nitwit, brat, electric train, shouting, enemies, adept;

50

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

(2) written language style, such as opinion, influence, draw a conclusion; (3) scientific language style, like affix, scientific monograph, proportion, calculation; (4) document language style, such as according to, should be given, shoulder full responsibility for…, This is to inform that; (5) newspaper and political language style, such as arms race, peaceful coexistence, positive neutrality; (6) poetic language style, such as beautiful, rouse, eyes, fabulous. The linguistic sign, at the syntactic or textual level, always expresses subjective modality, among which the implication of evaluative description is a typical one. Evaluative description implies the attitude of a speaker toward the utterance content on the basis of the description which is based on the length of time that the fact, the phenomenon and its nature, and the feature exist as well as their extended characteristics. For instance, BoT Tak дoждь! (What a rain!) (The words describe a heavy rain and also express the speaker’s subjective evaluation toward the phenomenon.); Дoждь и дoждь (It rains and rains.) (This sentence both describes a long steady rain and shows the speaker’s dissatisfaction and pity.); Знaй твepдит cвoe (He always says the same thing.) (The action, on the one hand, is described as an autonomous behavior, and on the other, it is thought to be out of stubbornness.) (Xin et al. 1990: 589).

1.3.4.18

Generality and Fuzziness

As Lenin said, “Any word is essentially a kind of generation…Thoughts and words show general things.”9 Language itself is a kind of abstraction and a generalization of one aspect of the external things. The language of human society is more associated with specific things, and it gives different names to many individual things of the same kind. But however specific the language is, it can’t give everything a specific name. To describe an object, language should have a certain degree of generalization. With the development of human society, language has a growing tendency to contain different levels of characteristics. Language can convey different levels of meanings, from mysterious philosophical abstraction to complex scientific and technological knowledge, even to delicate human emotions. However, a general language of a variety of different levels can only describe and express some certain aspects of external things, and human thoughts and emotions; it is impossible for a language to describe and express every detail of the external world as well as the human psychological activity. Language, with a certain degree of generalization, provides a possibility for humans to grasp the nature of things more deeply and show the universal law of the development of external things. But this has brought difficulties to humans, who require an accurate description of the movement of things and meticulous characterization of human mental activities. Hence, human languages, especially daily languages have a certain degree of ambiguity and uncertainty. In fact, no matter how precise a symbolic language

9

The Collected Works of Lenin, vol. 55: 233.

1.3 Language and Sign

51

system humans create is, it can only roughly describe the movement of things and human mental activities, and express and convey relevant information in a general and relatively accurate way. Lotfi Zadeh, a professor at the University of California, fully discussed the fuzziness of language in his article Fuzzy sets. His research found that the concept of “old age” is ambiguous. Is 70 years old considered “elderly”? If so, how about 60 years old? And 50? It is difficult to give an accurate answer. Take “elderly” as a set based on the domain of “age” and view 70, 60 and 50 years old as elements in this set, and in doing so, researchers can study the affiliation between these elements and the set. There are a large number of fuzzy words like “elderly” in languages. Later, linguists discovered that there are also numerous syntactically ambiguous sentences.10 Vague words and sentences cannot affect the communication between people; on the contrary, the vagueness of language makes itself more expressive. Moreover, if this feature is considered in machine translation systems and man–machine interaction systems, the efficiency of these systems will be improved.

1.3.4.19

Operationality

Human beings have to use a certain language in the course of understanding and transforming the world, which requires that linguistic signs have operationality. The basis of operationality lies in the unity of linguistic meaning and form. The purpose of using language in human practical and cognitive activities is to change people’s behaviors and represent the results of the cognitive activities by means of language meaning. However, the meaning of language is not expressed independently but relies on a certain linguistic form. It is precisely because language has various external, observable and perceptual forms that people can encode semantic meaning by taking advantage of spoken and written languages with certain meanings in different manners. For instance, speech, writing, mathematical derivation and computer storage, etc., which are performed by means of language, are external operations on language which is built on the internal operations on language thinking. In a sense, the external operations are just an extension of the internal ones. The reason why language is operable within thinking activities is that it is transformed into various forms of symbolic codes within thinking activities denoting the meaning of language. The process of operating, composing, decomposing, encoding and decoding all kinds of symbolic codes is the internalization of that of the external operation on language within the thinking activities. In fact, physiological changes in the brain caused by the process are consistent with thoses generated by the external operation on language. Scientific research demonstrates that a specific brain waveform appears when a participant says a particular word; more surprisingly, the waveform can still be seen when one just thinks of the word

10

Zadeh (1965).

52

1 Introduction to Linguistic Signs

but not utters it. Therefore, scientists can recognize the word according to different brain waveforms whether it is thought of or spoken. Thus, it can be seen that language is operational both inside and outside thinking activities, which ultimately depends on operations on symbolic codes in the brain.

1.3.4.20

Fallibility

Fallibility of the linguistic sign means that it can not only denote the real things but nonexistent ones, such as unicorns, centaurs, goblins and dragons in English, and дьявoл (devil) and pycaлкa (mermaid) in Russian, all of which are fictional, so the fallibility reflects an important feature of linguistic signs: they do not have a one-to-one correspondence with reality. Fallibility of linguistic signs is consistent with the cognitive theory. It is known that there is no “nonexistence” in the world but if people want to understand and describe the world, they must create the category of “nonexistence” and its corresponding symbol in their thoughts and language. Though language is a way of understanding and describing the world, people cannot require a one-to-one correspondence between language and the objective world. The requirement is an unrealistic fantasy and will eliminate the possibility of understanding the world. Bertrand Russell defined zero as the class of all empty classes (Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, p. 27). What is the empty class? In short, it is the “nonexistence” we said above. For there is no “nonexistence” in the real world, it is not allowed to define zero by using the principle of extension as defining natural numbers, such as 1, 2, 3, but only by symbols (Let X 6¼ X, S: {X|X 6¼ X}). The sign of “zero” indicates that what people think or say may be not fully consistent with the real world, which is the result of thinking going beyond reality. The word “robot” in many European languages appeared before the robot itself was invented. Initially, “robot” was created in a science-fiction written by Czech writer Karel Capek in 1920, which had the same etymology as paб(slave) and paбoтa (job) in Russian, and Arbeit (labor) in German. And, he expected the word could bear the meaning that robot can do some laborious tasks for people. But it is in the USA that a real robot was developed, and that happened more than 20 years after Chapek’s death. The non-correspondence between language and the real world is also a premise for the further deepening of human understanding. Take zero as an example as well, its introduction plays an important role in the development of mathematics. Because zero has no counterpart in the real world, humans can endow zero with more contents than any other numbers without having any conflict with the real world. For example, zero is the dividing line between positive and negative numbers, without which the number of digits and the concepts of infinity, infinitesimal and limit cannot be clarified. People can only have relations with real things in action, but in thoughts and language, they can have relations not only with real things but with nonexistent ones. Through describing and thinking about the relationships between real things, nonexistent ones and various fictional things, it is possible for people to understand

1.3 Language and Sign

53

the world and then master the world by practicing. Concepts and words such as God and soul are powerful examples. God and ghost are the products of ignorant imagination and superstition which cannot be confirmed by experience and will be abandoned with the development of knowledge. However, this trend is not in conflict with the fact that people often describe “nonexistence” (or “nothing”) as “a real thing” in their thoughts. It just shows that only when “nothing” is described as “a real thing” (i.e., they are given a certain “sense” semantically) can it provide the possibility to test itself. In the practical process, people always assume that the tested things do existent and draw some verifiable conclusions before demonstrating them. God, soul and ghost are gradually denied after such process is experienced (from the perspective of semantics, they have lost reference or “referential meaning”).

References Liu, K. (刘奎林), & Yang, C. (杨春鼎) (Eds.). (1989). An Introduction to the science of thinking (《思维科学导论》). China: China Worker Publishing House. Pu, P. (庞朴). (1974). Gongsun longon name and nature (《公孙龙子译注名实论》) (p. 42). Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House. Wang, D. (王德春). (1983). Lexicological studies(《词汇学研究》) (p. 32). China: Shandong Education Press. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353. Zhang, Y. (张永言). (1982). A brief Introduction to Lexicology (《词汇学简论》) (p. 49). Huazhong: Huazhong Institute of Technology Press.

Chapter 2

Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics

2.1

Linguistics

2.1.1

The Object of Linguistics

As with language, it is quite difficult for us to give definitions that could reach full consensus to linguistics. Most linguists, however, hold that “linguistics is the scientific study of language” (Liu 1995: 3) or define linguistics as “a science concerning language studies.”1 Here, two basic points need to be clarified.

2.1.1.1

The Scientificity of Linguistics

For linguistics, scientificity is embodied in the systematic analysis of language through controlled and verifiable observations under the guidance of a certain linguistic theory. In order to make linguistics worthy of the name of science, linguists have presented three basic principles to evaluate the scientificity of linguistic theories after a long-term exploration. (1) Objectivity Generally speaking, objectivity requires us to use experimental data to test the correctness of theoretical assumptions, which means both subjective assumptions and preconceived ideas should be opposed. At present, linguistic theories are validated either by fully objective and sufficiently representative linguistic data or by a large number of linguistic facts (e.g., what language users actually say) that have been observed for many times.

1 China Small Encyclopedia
Languages and Characters (《中华小百科全书
语言文字》), Sichuan Lexicographical Publishing House 1994: 1.

© Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_2

55

56

2 Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics

(2) Systematicity Any language theory has its own theoretical system which features consistency and connectivity. It has been proved that linguists conduct researches and make claims within a constant framework and following a set of standard processes. Of course, the order and perspective of linguists’ analysis and comparison are not limited by the standard processes. Some linguists study sounds first and then words, phrases, sentences, etc., while others study semantics first and then syntax, words, sounds, etc. No matter which order they follow, the study of language theories is carried out within one system. (3) Clarity Clarity means that all the concepts, categories, terminologies and rules should be clearly illustrated to remove ambiguity. It should be noted that in the area of linguistics, many concepts, categories and terminologies are still confusing, particularly in the theories of different linguistic schools. It is estimated that there are over 200 definitions of “sentence” and dozens of definitions of “function.” However, some arguments on language have neglected the fact that language, as a special sign system, is determined by its nature of social humanities, so it is impossible to ensure complete uniformity. We believe that the essence of clarity lies in whether the substance of a certain object is reached, the explanation is reasonable and comprehensive, or the language is scientific and conventional. From this perspective, it can be seen that linguistic theories are in accordance with the requirements of science, and their scientific status is in no doubt (Liu 1995: 3).

2.1.1.2

The Object of Linguistics

Lots of textbooks and linguistics dictionaries define “the language itself” as the object of linguistics, which is a question worthy of discussion, and the reason can be attributed to structural linguistics. We know that historical comparative linguistics once took a dominant role in the development of linguistics. Researchers at that time emphasized the study of diachronic comparison, and their main concern was the temporal and spatial variation and distribution of the language system, but the internal structural relationship of language was not well researched. Thus, the school of structural linguistics was founded, and its researchers focused on the study of synchronic linguistics and drew people’s interest to the internal structure of language and its level of organization. The synchronic study emphasized the analysis of the language units on each structural level and studied the interaction among the subsystems in the language system. It should be said that while great achievements were made in language research in this period, independency and autonomy of language were overemphasized, which has a negative impact on contemporary linguistics as the fact that language is just one system of the big system of human society was neglected.

2.1 Linguistics

57

Simply speaking, the research object of linguistics seems to be the human natural language because natural language is the major sign system in human society, and it is very necessary in human life. Linguistics, however, studies not only the sign system itself which has been created by humans and more importantly, how the sign system is created, used and developed by humans; that is to say, the research object of linguistics is the whole language activity or process of humans. (Li and Tang 1987: 32)

The conclusion above is not unfounded, and we can analyze it from four aspects: (1) Language practice is part of human social practice and cognitive activities. Human beings, in their own social practice and cognitive activities, keep using the sign system created by themselves. By using it repeatedly, they have gradually improved and developed this tool of communication and understanding, whose application has been greatly expanded. In today’s information age, we can not only use words to break through the time and space constraints but also spread language message to any corner of the world with the help of radio waves and satellites. Computer technology and artificial intelligence, in particular, simulate the mechanism and function of human language, which has greatly improved and expanded human language competence, and made a qualitative leap in language practice. Therefore, it is the reality that forces language to expand its research scope to the whole language practice or process of human beings, rather than considering only one factor in language practice— the language itself, which reflects clearly the historical limitation of traditional linguistics. (2) According to semiotics, the world of signs comprises three major relations, namely the relation among various signs, the relation between signs and the objective world and the relation between signs and humans. These three relations actually embody three basic elements of human language practice— language (a system of signs used by humans as a tool for communication and understanding), society (the target that language reflects, the object it acts upon and the situation to which it is applied) and humans (the subject of language practice, that is, the creator, user and developer of language). The latter two are often ignored in the theory of traditional linguistics. Nevertheless, merely abstracting the entity of language from the social system of human language practice and analyzing it isolatedly and statically will inevitably fall into subjectivity and one-sidedness. Contemporary linguistics therefore should consider the whole of language practice activities as a complex system, the core of which is the historical, social and realistic “humans.” Language practice, like other human practical activities, is always society-based and shown as a historically dynamic process. Humans separated from the society can only be biologically abstract and do not exist at all. Likewise, it is quite impossible to study language practice out of the society. Meanwhile, the society is relative to the subject of language practice, that is to say, if there is no subject, there will be no object or target of language practice and vice versa. (3) The whole language practice of humans should include two elements: the social practice of language and the practice of language studies.

58

2 Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics

The social practice of language encompasses many aspects. People are engaged in language practice anytime and anywhere from the perspective of time and space. Language activities have penetrated into all areas of modern human activities, including politics, economy, culture, science and technology and military. What’s more, with humans entering the outer space, their language activities have also been expanded. In terms of natural language and its derived systems, humans have also created a number of other sign systems or quasi-sign systems which are all communicative tools similar to natural language in certain aspects. Consequently, exploring, reorganizing, researching and developing those signs from the standpoint of linguistics and integrating them with natural language can not only tremendously enrich the means and methods of human communication but also deepen the understanding of the basic characteristics of natural language. Hence, the social practice of language should not be excluded from linguistic studies; on the contrary, it should be seen as the only reasonable logical starting point and scientific basis of the linguistic system. The social practice of language and the practice of language studies should be both researched in the field of linguistics. The direct goal of studying these practices seems to be building certain explanatory theories, but in fact, its ultimate goal is to guide such practices. There is no doubt that the practices of language studies are the sources of language theory which can help people understand the world and more importantly help them change the world. Take the sign system of language as an example. People need to know the attribute and nature of language and disclose its inner structure and rules which can enable them to better master and use the variants of language and predict its development trend. What’s more, people also need to make full use of language rules to benefit themselves. In this respect, we can see that a pure “natural language” does not exist, and in fact, it is a “constructed language” and part of the “humanized nature.” Therefore, language theory not only evolves along with the development of the social practice of language but should direct the practice of language and predict its future. (4) The target of linguistic research should be the well-defined and normative parts in speech acts. As is known, language is abstracted from parole. That is, “Language is a well-defined homogenous object in the heterogeneous mass of speech facts.” (Saussure 1985: 30) Hereby, linguistic research cannot be separated from the context of speech acts in the very first place. Speech acts can generally be divided into two categories: the one in which communication succeeds and another in which communication fails. (Ju 1999) The former can surely reflect the correct human mode of thinking and contain certain information. Otherwise, the communication is meaningless. And the communication failure in speech acts can be caused by different reasons: (1) the speech is informative and logical, but the addresser fails to consider the cultural backgrounds and cognitive contexts of the addressee, which causes communication failure; (2) the speech is not informative or logical, which causes communication failure.

2.1 Linguistics

59

For example, a drunkard’s talk or a lunatic’s talk cannot be understood by the addressee as well as the addresser himself. This kind of speech acts is essentially identical with the biological impulse of the vocal organs. These speech acts, without any social convention, are neither logical nor meaningful. They are roughly the same as physical voice. As long as they are logical and informative, both the speech acts leading to communication success and those leading to failure can be the research object of linguistics. That is because only in the logical and informative speech acts, the comparatively stable, well-defined and constant parts can be found. They are the conventional rules deeply rooted in human mind, influencing and regulating their speech acts. These conventional and well-defined parts are the research object of linguistics.

2.1.2

Classification of Linguistics

2.1.2.1

General Linguistics and Specific Linguistics

Linguistics, in accordance with the general and specific classification standard, can be divided into general linguistics and specific linguistics. The former studies the common features, characters and rules of languages, and the latter investigates the specific laws of language existence and development. General linguistics, also known as theoretical linguistics, conducts a comprehensive research on languages and studies the general theory, attempting to determine the common rules of languages. Specific linguistics describes and investigates the system and features of a certain language or a language family to discover the laws of language. For example, Chinese Linguistics, Sino-Tibetan Linguistics, English Linguistics, German Linguistics, Russian Linguistics, Slavic Linguistics, etc. The study of a specific language is fundamental to the establishment of general linguistics. Based on experiences from the previous study of a certain language, we can make general and abstract theoretical analyses and thus come up with an outlook on language and principles in a systematic way. Therefore, if we carry out a deeper study of more languages, the content of general linguistics will be richer and more comprehensively generalized. The basic principles of general linguistics provide a guide and an orientation for the study of a specific language; they also serve as a criterion based on which we assess or evaluate the study of a specific language.

2.1.2.2

Internal Linguistics and External Linguistics

According to the research scope, linguistics can be divided into internal linguistics and external linguistics.

60

2 Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics

Internal linguistics focuses on the internal structural system of a language. Such disciplines as phonetics, phonology, syntactics, lexicology and typology all belong to the category of internal linguistics. External linguistics centers on what are beyond the language system but relevant to language. It involves the relationship between language and such human activities as society, mentality, thinking, signs, cultures and speech acts, as well as extra-linguistic contexts and paralanguage in the midst of verbal communication. The disciplines including dialectology, geographical linguistics, areal linguistics and sociolinguistics all belong to the category of external linguistics.

2.1.2.3

Diachronic Linguistics and Synchronic Linguistics

From the dynamic and static perspectives, that is, from the viewpoints of historical development and qualitative description, linguistics is classified into diachronic linguistics and synchronic linguistics. Diachronic linguistics studies the evolution of one or more languages at different historical stages, that is, the changes and historical development of languages at different stages. It focuses on the diachronic language phenomena, which is the evolution continuity of linguistic elements from ancient times till now. Diachronic linguistics is also called dynamic linguistics or evolutionary linguistics. Synchronic linguistics studies the state of language at a given time in its historical development, without taking into account the evolution of this state, so it is called static linguistics. Meanwhile, synchronic linguistics is also called descriptive linguistics as it focuses on description and opposes prescription. Moreover, it advocates the objective description of language conventions without any subjective comments; it is sometimes treated as an opposing discipline of traditional grammar or prescribed grammar. “Speech always implies both an established system and an evolution; at every moment it is an existing institution and a product of the past.”(Saussure 1980) From this point of view, it is impossible to completely distinguish synchronic linguistics from diachronic linguistics, and they are two research methods rather than two categories. On one hand, a synchronic phenomenon in language is the result of the diachronic development of language and the starting point where language continues to develop. It is hard to carry out the diachronic study without knowing clearly about the systems of modern languages. On the other hand, language is continuously developing, and it’s impossible that the synchronic system of language can be clearly defined. Therefore, historical development of language should be taken into consideration when the synchronic description of language is studied. It is also true that innovation is created in a language, which initially results in disobeying the rules of synchronic functions of language, but through analogy, a fact of speaking is gradually accepted by the community and becomes a fact of language after being repeated many times, and thus new language rules are formed.

2.1 Linguistics

2.1.2.4

61

Comparative Linguistics and Contrastive Linguistics

Comparison is a basic method to study and recognize things, which can also be applied to linguistics studies. According to the relationship between similarities and differences of objects of comparison, linguistics can be divided into comparative linguistics and contrastive linguistics. Comparative linguistics focuses on comparative studies of phonological, grammatical and lexical systems of the same language or the same type of languages (related languages) at different stages of historical development, with a view to discussing the historical links among internal systems of a language or among the languages of the same type, exploring the basis for the classification of language families and creating or restructuring a common proto-language of a certain group of related languages. For example, the diachronic comparative studies made by linguists on the Indo-European languages help us understand the relations among these languages during the course of evolution; therefore, we can deduce the initial form of proto-Indo-European languages. Comparative linguistics (or historical comparative linguistics) originated at the end of the eighteenth century and developed into a dominant field of linguistics in the nineteenth century. Due to the establishment and application of comparative linguistics, linguistics established itself as an independent discipline separating from philosophy and bibliography. Contrastive linguistics studies the state of two or more different languages at a certain stage of development, which is a static synchronic study among different languages in order to find out their similarities and differences in various aspects. According to the purposes of contrast and the scopes of the languages involved, we can divide the synchronic contrast between languages into general contrastive linguistics and narrow contrastive linguistics. The purpose of general contrastive linguistics is to try to find out the common characteristics and tendencies of all languages in the world so as to provide a basis for the study of general linguistic phenomena or to find out the typical differences among all languages in the world in order to provide a basis for the study of linguistic typology. The narrow contrastive linguistics is usually limited to the contrastive study between two languages (more than two languages sometimes). It is not important whether these two languages are representative or not because what we study is not the similarities and typical differences between all languages in the world but the similarities in the forms and structures of two or more languages and the differences between two languages.

2.1.2.5

Theoretical Linguistics and Applied Linguistics

From the perspectives of the study on language theory and the application of language, linguistics can be divided into theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics. Theoretical linguistics is most concerned with systematic and profound study on the basic theories of linguistics. Its relations with language practice lie in analyzing and generalizing numerous language phenomena. The ultimate goal is to establish a

62

2 Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics

methodology providing guidelines and theoretical basis for applied linguistics. Since theoretical linguistics focuses on the nature of language and linguistic universals as well as provides the basic concepts, theories, models and methods, it is closely related to general linguistics, and the two can actually be seen as the same branch of linguistics. Applied linguistics’ goal is to apply the research findings in linguistics to various fields and study how to make the best use of knowledge of language to solve practical problems. The concept of “applied linguistics” was first introduced in response to the narrowing of focus in linguistics in the latter half of the nineteenth century and was officially recognized as an independent discipline in the 1940s. Applied linguistics has been understood in a broad and a narrow sense. Applied linguistics in a narrow sense mainly refers to language teaching, especially a second or foreign language teaching. But with the development of social sciences, natural sciences and engineering technologies, applied linguistics viewed in a broad sense has been accepted by more and more scholars. They believe this discipline concerns, in addition to language teaching, some interdisciplinary fields such as language standardization, dictionary compilation, word creation, translation, speech pathology analysis, language disorder therapy, artificial intelligence and machine translation and automatic information retrieval.

2.2

Semiotics

Semiotics or semiology,2 as the name suggests, is a science studying signs. It is a new subject that emerged in the early twentieth century. Modern semiotics has two sources: the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure and American logician Charles Sanders Peirce. They introduced, almost at the same time, the concept of the “science of signs,” thus regarded as founders of modern semiotics. The study of semiotics as an independent subject began in the 1960s in France and then quickly flourished in the USA, the former Soviet Union and some other countries. Now, the study of semiotics has boomed internationally. It is penetrating various subjects with its strong momentum of development and has become an interdisciplinary, cross-cutting methodology. As British philosopher Monroe C. Beardsley puts it, “…semiotics in a broad sense has undoubtedly been one of the central preoccupations of contemporary philosophy, as well as many other fields of thought….” (Chen 1999: 9)

The Chinese term “fuhaoxue” has two English equivalents: “semiology” and “semiotics.” They share the same meaning but differ from each other in that “semiology” is preferred in European academia to commemorate its creator Saussure, while “semiotics” is frequently used in English-speaking nations in memory of Peirce.

2

2.2 Semiotics

2.2.1

Traditions of Semiotics: An Overview

2.2.1.1

In the West

63

As the famous linguist Roman Jakobson pointed out in his book Quest for the Essence of Language, the thought of linguistic semiotics has been around since ancient Greece. The word semiotics is derived from the ancient Greek word sememeion, the meaning of which is related to medicine. It is said that people at that time regarded all kinds of symptoms as signs, and they thought doctors could diagnose diseases as long as they mastered these signs. Hippocrates, a prestigious Greek physician, was thus recognized as “Father of Semiotics.” (Gou 1993: 55) The study of semiotics first began in the field of philosophy, and some philosophers, like Plato and Aristotle, used to discuss signs. In some dialogues of Plato, there are fragments of questions about words and phrases and signs, such as Cratylus, which reflects the controversy over the relationship between objects and their names. Plato introduced two views: one is that names depend on the nature of objects; the other is that names are established through common practice. For instance, Heraclitus claimed that words are created by nature, and his student Cratylus added that each thing is endowed with a specific name by nature, as each perceived object is endowed with a specific perception. Demokritos, on the contrary, argued that things have no “natural” relationships with their names which come from conventions, such as homonyms, synonyms and the renaming of proper nouns. (Xiao 1989:13) Aristotle, an outstanding ancient Greek philosopher, also had some discussion on linguistic signs. He proposed the distinction between meaningful signs and meaningless signs in his works Poetics and Rhetoric. And in his Organon, a work on logic, he also talked about linguistics in great detail. For instance, the chapter Categories discusses homonyms, synonyms, derivative words and categories; the chapter On Interpretation deals with definitions of nouns, verbs and sentences, relationships among various propositions, and etc. Later scholars speak highly of Aristotle’s contributions on linguistic signs: “Aristotle analyzed not only the linguistic forms, but the formal structures judged and reasoned that are irrelevant to the linguistic content. The degree of abstraction and accuracy he attained had never been known before in Greek philosophy, and he made a great contribution to the clarification of our thinking methods and the order of establishment of the thinking methods. He actually established the foundation of scientific language.” (Xiao 1989: 13) After Aristotle, the Stoic school, the Epicurus school and the skeptics all performed a lot of descriptive researches on the issues of signs in their respective disciplines. For example, the Stoic school clearly pointed out that it is necessary to distinguish the differences between object, sign and meaning. They argued that object and sign, as real existences, are perceivable, while meaning is purely subjective (Gou 1993: 55) The Epicurean school’s Designis is also a monograph on this subject.

64

2 Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics

The discussion of signs in the Roman period was mainly carried out within the framework of rhetoric, and semiotic researches in this period were characterized by technicality and scientificity. According to Li, both characteristics are the origins of the logic of natural sciences (Li 1999: 65). After rhetoric and symbolic logic were combined with Christian theology in the Roman period, the discussions of signs were substantially steered to semantics. Augustine, a famous scholar in this period, that is, the early Middle Ages, had important influence on the later scholars for his research on signs. He believed that “a sign (signum) is a thing which reminds us of something beyond the impression.” (He 1999: 172) Therefore, signs can be viewed as both material objects and mental effects. Li believes that such distinction posed some direct influence on Saussure’s views on signs. (Li 1999: 67) Though Augustine’s theories of truth, faith, knowledge as well as good and evil have been criticized in modern Western academic circles, his way of thinking is of special significance to the development of semiotics. In his introspection, Augustine initially made thorough discussions on the relations between meanings of mental and valued objects and connected language with the conception of time for the first time. During the time of Scholastics, some scholars had disputes over realism and nominalism, and the issue of word signs became one of their core battlefields. Realist scholars held that names or universal concepts are all real, objective and exist prior to particular objects, and thoughts prior to particular objects are the inner language of God. Nominalists, however, held that only things with unique qualities have real existence, and their designations are merely general concepts of things. The concepts of things always appear after the things themselves. For example, nominalist William Ockham argued that only individuals exist, rather than supra-individual universals, essences, or forms, and that universals are the products of abstraction from individuals by the human mind and have no extra-mental existence. Here, nominalists came up with a correct answer to the relationship between signs and objects from the perspective of ontology. In the history of Western thought, ideologists like Francis Bacon, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, George Berkeley and GottfriedLeibniz, among whom the most influential were Locke and Leibniz, had all given their arguments on signs. In his famous book An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke divided human knowledge into three categories—naturology, ethics and semiotics, and took 11 chapters to discuss words as signs. The book analyzed the essence of linguistic signs, elaborated the types of signs and their relationships, as well as discussed the deficits and misuse of language and words. The ideational theory he put forward remains a precursor of the studies on the theory of meaning which Western analytical philosophy has been studying. Locke was so concerned about language issues since he realized signs were to get involved when in-depth studies were conducted to examine epistemological problems. Following Locke, Leibniz also paid great attention to signs. Leibniz refuted Locke’s ideas presented in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding in his own book New Essays on Human Understanding. He also dedicated himself to ground-breaking research into mathematical logic to create a general language

2.2 Semiotics

65

much more “accurate” and “reasonable” than a natural language and to apply this language into logical reasoning to eliminate the limitations and irregularities of natural language. Leibniz, therefore, was widely recognized as the founder of mathematic logic, which made him achieve breakthrough contributions to semiotic studies. Later, Immanuel Kant introduced a research project about sign classification in his Anthropologie in Pragmatischer Hinsiacht, which divided signs into three types: artistic signs, natural signs and miracle signs and explored them in details. Besides, Georg Wilhelm Hegel proposed in his Aesthetics that architecture is a symbolic sign made up of building materials and poetry is a suggestive sign made up of sounds.

2.2.1.2

In China

Semiotics is not unique to the Western cultures. China’s scholars have long been concerned with semiotic studies. Gao Letian pointed out that, in China, the study of Chinese language and characters—a linguistic sign system peculiar to the Han nationality—was initiated in the Eastern Zhou Dynasty (770–256 BC) and reached its first climax in the Han Dynasty (202BC–220AD), marked by Shuowen Jiezi (literally, Explaining Graphs and Analyzing Characters), a classic book that systematically analyzes the ancient Chinese characters. (Gao 1997: 53) From the perspective of modern semiotics, we can find that Shuowen Jiezi contains rich thoughts on semiotics. And the core of thoughts about language reflected in this book lies in understanding and explaining the Chinese characters as a semiotic system. The preface of this book reveals Xu Shen the author’s theoretical guiding principle for the Chinese character semiotics, in which many aspects of Chinese characters are explained clearly, such as the semiotic nature, origin and evolution, structural features and development, relationship between shape and meaning, ways and rules of word formation and writing. Therefore, we can conclude that the Chinese sages had long known about the significant features and meanings of signs, especially linguistic signs. During the Spring and Autumn period (770–221 BC) in China, philosophers from various schools raised a debate over “name and nature.” And this historical phase marked the peak of philosophical discussion about semiotic issues in the Chinese philosophical history. At that time, almost all the famous philosophers and scholars participated in this debate and requested the so-called “rectification of names” from their own positions and perspectives. “Name” meant roughly the same thing as today’s “sign.” The debate over “name and nature” usually evolved into a debate about the relationship between a concept and a thing (i.e., thought and existence) and then turned into an answer to fundamental philosophical questions. (Xiao 1989: 8) Confucius was the first to put forward the “rectification of names” claim. During his time, the old system (Rites) was accelerated to collapse, and “nature” became more and more incompatible to the “name” of Rites in the Zhou Dynasty. Thus, there occurred situations of “‘name’ remained but ‘nature’

66

2 Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics

disappeared” or “‘name’ remained but ‘nature’ changed.” Confucius believed that “nature” should not have changed, so he advocated using “name” to rectify the changed or changing “nature.” And he also said, “If names are not rectified, language will not be in accordance with the truth of things. If language cannot be in accordance with the truth of things, affairs of the state will not be dealt with successfully. If affairs of the state cannot be dealt with successfully, the system of Li and Yue (rites and music) will not develop. When the system of Li and Yue cannot develop, punishments will not be properly imposed; when punishments cannot be properly imposed, people will not know how to move hands or feet.” Thus, we can see that Confucius’s idea of “rectification of names” bears features of politics and social ethics. Among all the Pre-Qin philosophers who participated in the discussion of “name and nature,” Deng Xi (545–501 BC), Yin Wen (360–280 BC), Hui Shi (390– 317 BC) and Gongsun Long (320–250 BC) could be reputed as “scholars of ‘name’” (semioticians). Among all these semioticians, Gongsun carried out the most in-depth study on “name,” and he fully illustrated semiotics in most of his books. Li Xiankun, a famous Chinese semiotician, believed that the value of the books by Gongsun is no less than that of the books by semioticians of ancient Greece (Li 1993: 62). Gongsun gave a definition of “name” in his book On Name and Nature: “name is the denotation or reference of nature.” In other words, name denotes or refers to nature. And name is used to state and call an object, thus it is a sign. In Gongsun’s opinion, there are questions about the use of names: whether they can be used and whether the names used are right or not. If a sign can refer to only one special object, then the name can be used, otherwise it cannot. In today’s view, the idea of “correct name” emphasized by Gongsun requires the accurate use of “name.” The opinion that name must correspond with nature reflects the idea of materialism, but how can name correspond with nature? From Gongsun’s perspective, one cannot use nature to rectify name but can use name to rectify nature. Thus, his claim embodies idealism. It was the Mohist School that firstly elucidated the relationship between “name” and “nature” based on materialism. The Mohist Canon confirmed that “nature” is primary; “name” is secondary and explains the nature. Besides, the book holds that name has to reflect nature, and the concept of a noun must reflect the objective things correctly. According to the Mohist Canon, name can be a general name, a categorical name or a private name. The general name refers to the concepts or nouns at the highest level, for example, the word “thing” contains all things in the world. The categorical name refers to the common concepts or nouns, for example, the word “horse” includes any kind of horses. The private name refers to the concepts or nouns of particular things. It indicates a specific thing and is equivalent to a proper noun. Xuncius (313–238 BC), a great thinker in the Warring States Period (475– 221 BC), made a quite profound analysis on the relation between name and nature, and on other general problems related to signs. He actively participated in the debates at that time and established his own ideological system of matching between name and nature. Xuncius put forward the necessity to rectify names for

2.2 Semiotics

67

the first time and believed that appropriate nouns and concepts must be used as tools when people exchange thoughts and distinguish things, or misunderstanding and confusion may appear in language and thought, and dearness and cheapness, and similarity and difference of things cannot be distinguished. Therefore, name must correspond to nature. Special attention should be paid to Xuncius’ thought of “convention,” that is, a certain nature that a certain name stands for is not fixed at the beginning but “conventional” and formed from the long-term habit of communicating thoughts. However, once the conventions are definite, what name refers to what nature and what nature can be represented by what name will be accepted and known by social members, and then, names can’t be changed randomly by individuals. Xuncius’ incisive explanation of the relationship between name and nature could be regarded as the best understanding of the nature of signs in the history of Chinese philosophy. Besides Xuncius, other philosophers and their schools also made some explanations of the relationship between name and nature or other problems about signs. However, most of those explanations were made from the perspective of idealism or mysticism—some reversed the relationship between name and nature, and others fragmented the relationship between language and thought. The above review indicates that the research on signs has a profound history in both Western countries and China. In the past, statements about signs were always based on disciplines like philosophy, theology and linguistics. It wasn’t until the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century that semiotics finally got rid of the auxiliary status and developed into an independent discipline which specifically studies signs and their signification. Objectively speaking, however, from the perspective of modern semiotics, semiotics as a discipline is mainly the brainchild of Western academic thoughts. The rise of the modern semiotics movement is substantially the regeneration of signs as an old topic under modern social and cultural conditions. The enduring vitality of signs indicates, to some extent, the importance of semiotics.

2.2.2

The Establishment of Semiotics

2.2.2.1

Origins of Modern Semiotic Theories

The origins of modern semiotic theories are reviewed in Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics by Li Youzheng and Semiotics and Linguistics (Wang 1999: 6–7). Generally, there are four main origins of modern semiotic theories: natural sciences, social sciences and humanities, modern philosophy and modern linguistics. (1) Natural sciences The principles and methodology of natural sciences are essential to the formation of modern semiotics. Particularly, new interdisciplinary theories established after

68

2 Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics

World War II like the control theory and the information theory have not only covered the contents relevant to semiotic communication but have also become one of the general theoretical bases for some modern semiotic theories. (2) Social sciences and humanities The development of scientific thoughts in the twentieth century is also shown in various fields of social sciences and humanities, such as sociology, historiography, politics, jurisprudence, economics, psychology and literature and art studies. With the integrated development of social sciences and humanities, scholars have made a much richer and far more detailed description of the objects in the social and psychological fields than before and have created numerous terminologies and made new explanations of these objects. Consequently, the segmentation and its relevant methods of the expression plane and content plane over the whole range of the social and psychological world directly constitute the specific content of various branches of semiotics. It is therefore safe to say that the formation of modern semiotics is closely associated with the development of modern social sciences and humanities. (3) Modern philosophy Modern philosophical thoughts are the main content of the modern semiotic thoughts and one of their bases. Some subject areas and thoughts which pay much attention to signification and reference, like analytical philosophy, phenomenology, hermeneutics, Western Marxism and linguistic philosophies, are directly relevant to the theoretical discussion of modern semiotics. The close relationship between modern philosophy and modern semiotics is shown in some philosophical schools in which the semiotic thoughts are the main content, such as Peirce’s philosophy and Morris’ philosophy. These philosophies have formed the backbone of the philosophical school of modern semiotics. (4) Modern linguistics Modern linguistics is the most important source and basis of modern semiotics. Li Youzheng holds that semiotics is tightly related to modern linguistics, claiming that the modern semiotic movement could not take place without the foundation of linguistics. Notably, compared with natural sciences, social sciences & humanities and modern philosophy, the ideas of Saussure and modern structural linguistics are more consistent in content, better grounded in theory and more relevant in application with modern semiotics. Besides, it is the modern linguistic principles that guide modern semiotics, as a discipline of general semantics, to produce various semantic theories. The close relationship between these two disciplines can also be reflected in the way that modern linguistics enjoys greater autonomy and has more independence in the field of modern humanities, and thus, modern semiotic activities which are partially based on modern linguistics show a relatively clear and independent profile.

2.2 Semiotics

2.2.2.2

69

The Establishment of Modern Semiotics

As has been noted, modern semiotics originated from the theories of Saussure and Peirce who put forward the concept of “the science of signs” in almost the same period. Saussure wrote in Course in General Linguistics, “It is therefore possible to conceive of a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life. It would form part of social psychology, and hence of general psychology. We shall call it semiology (from the Greek sēmeîon, ‘sign’). It would investigate the nature of signs and the laws governing them. Since it does not yet exist, one cannot say for certain that it will exist. But it has a right to exist, a place ready for it in advance.” (Saussure 1996: 38) Peirce, a logician and one of the pioneers of American pragmatism, also put forward his semiotic thoughts almost over the same span of time. “Logic, in its general sense, is, as I believe I have shown, only another name for semiotic, the quasi-necessary, or formal doctrine of signs.” (quoted from Hawkes 1987: 126). Both of them laid a foundation for the establishment of semiotics and developed it into an independent science. The French linguist Pierre Guiraud pointed out that Saussure emphasized the social function of signs, while Peirce focused on the logical function. (quoted from Li 1986: 89) Saussure and Peirce were the pioneers of semiotics, yet the study of semiotics as an independent discipline began in France in the 1960s. In 1964, Roland Barthes published his book Elements of Semiology, which marked the emergence of semiotics as a discipline and the formation of semiotic theory and also established himself as a semiotician. The book soon drew much attention from European and American countries. Semiotics transcended political divisions and emerged as a unified academic movement in just a few years. After the International Association for Semiotic Studies (IASS) was established in 1969, such countries as the UK, the US, Greece and Brazil also gradually founded semiotic societies. Until now, the IASS has comprised of more than 20 member countries, and thus, we can conclude that semiotic studies have been booming worldwide. Semiotic studies in recent decades have expanded its focus from linguistic signs to nonlinguistic signs and developed various semiotic theories. Moreover, as semiotic theories penetrated other disciplines, a series of disciplines of semiotics have been generated such as linguistic semiotics, paralinguistic semiotics, zoosemiotics, olfactory semiotics, medical semiotics, musical semiotics and semiotics of dance and painting. In France and America where semiotic studies are most commonly carried out, semiotic methodology has permeated almost all fields including natural sciences and humanities with semiotic studies gaining momentum.

2.2.3

Classification of Semiotics

Nowadays, a growing number of scholars have been committed to drawing a panoramic “map” for contemporary semiotic studies. Semioticians such as Thomas

70

2 Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics

Sebeok, Umberto Eco, Richard Posner and John Deely put forward their respective criteria for the classification of semiotics. Most of them hypothesized that all kinds of phenomena in the natural and cultural world are study objects of semiotics. Italian semiotician Eco tried to give his classification of semiotics in the book A Theory of Semiotics (1976). Based on the similarities and differences between the features of objects and those of signs, Eco put natural and cultural communications into different categories in the field of semiotics and made the classification as broad as possible. His classification is as follows: Zoosemiotics: It studies nonhumans. However, we can learn from it the biological elements in human communication. Olfactory semiotics: It studies the fragrant signs with emotional and indicative values and the rules for codes. Tactile communication: It studies psychological phenomena such as the reading of people with visual impairment and various gestures (e.g., kiss and hug) in the interpersonal communication. Gustatory semiotics: It is similar to the relevant studies of cultural anthropology. Para-linguistics: It studies the voices excluded from the structure of linguistics. For example, the vocal qualities and other vocal features (cry, laugh, bellow, etc.), which can reflect the speaker’s age, gender and health condition. Medical semiotics: It studies the connection between diseases and their symptoms as well as that between symptoms and verbalized behaviors in psychoanalysis. Kinesics and proxemics: It studies the coding rules of action phenomena such as gesture, etiquette and ritual in society. Music semiotics: Music signs and their syntagmas and aggregates have signified value in the sign system of music. Formalized language: Eco put scientific language into the field of semiotics. Written language system: The study of characters that are not included in the formal character system can be listed as a separate category. Natural language: This is one of the typical research fields of semiotics. Visual communication system: It studies all kinds of graphic, icon and color systems, e.g., advertisemements, paper currencies, cards, construction drawings, dance atlas, maps, etc. System of objects: It studies objects as communication devices. Plot structure: e.g., the study of various narrative structures. Text theory: The wholeness of contemporary text theory weakens the independence of classic signs, which makes the discipline more and more important. Cultural code: It focuses on the cultural behaviors and value system of cultural codes, e.g., typology of Soviet culture. Aesthetic text: Aesthetic works all involve the usage of codes and their elements. Mass communication: It has become an important aspect of cultural semiotics today. Rhetoric: Eco argues that the status of rhetoric ranks only second to that of linguistics in contemporary semiotics. (quoted from Li 1999: 6)

2.2 Semiotics

71

It can be concluded that these above categories proposed by Eco in the mid-1970s all belong to the contemporary semiotics in varying degrees. Li also put forward a scheme in his Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics. He holds that semiotics can be classified from five perspectives. (Li 1999: 9) We find the scheme reasonable and manageable. The specific quotes are as follows: Subject area: General semiotics//Specific semiotics; Modern semiotics//Historical semiotics; Western semiotics//Oriental semiotics; Model of agency activities: Formal or independent//Informal or dependent; School of methodology: Perspectives of humanities//Perspectives of natural sciences; Language-centered perspectives//Nonlanguage-centered perspectives; Analysis level: Theoretical level//Practical level; Research style: Strict//Non-strict; Analytical//Descriptive; Systematical//Scattered; Direct//Indirect.

2.2.4

Branches of Semiotic Studies

2.2.4.1

Trichotomy of Semiotics

American philosopher and semiotician Charles Morris proposed the trichotomy of semiotics in 1946, namely syntactics, semantics and pragmatics. The idea has become the most influential and extensively used classification of semiotic studies. According to Signs, Language, and Behavior by Morris, signs involve three pairs of relations: “the formal relations of signs to one another, the relations of signs to the objects to which the signs are applicable, the relation of signs to interpreters.” The three relations indicate the three aspects or dimensions of symbolic meaning. Morris referred to the formal relations of signs to one another as “MF,” namely the “formal aspect of meaning or formal meaning”; the relations of signs to the objects to which the signs are applicable as “ME,” namely the “existence of meaning or the meaning of existence”; the relation of signs to interpreters as “MP,” namely the “pragmatic aspect of meaning or pragmatic meaning.” Therefore, the meaning of signs is the sum of the three aspects or dimensions: M = ME + MP + MF. Morris argued that the branches of semiotics should consist of syntactics, semantics and pragmatics. (1) Syntactics: It usually puts aside social factors and relations between signs and the signified, and mainly studies idealized structural relations;

72

2 Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics

(2) Semantics: It mainly focuses on the relation between signs and thinking and the meaning that signs represent; (3) Pragmatics: It studies not only the signs’ function on humans but the human creation and application of signs. Such studies contain explorations of the psychological and sociological characteristics of signs. Some scholars pointed out that pragmatics is the most distinctive one in the trichotomy. Those who study linguistic signs are very much in favor of this classification, and apply it to such as researches intercultural communication, theory of literature and art and bilingual translation.

2.2.4.2

Research Orientation and Main Schools of Semiotics

Researches on semiotics in a real sense in modern times started from Saussure and Peirce, but its development contributed itself to the work of Bertrand Russel and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Moreover, its spread to other sectors of human culture also benefited from the creative researches of Ernest Cassirer, Susan Langer, etc. In general, the modern form of semiotics, to a large extent, is completed by the common efforts of philosophers, aestheticians, linguists and litterateurs (Gou 1993: 56). Classifications of the research orientation at present mainly include Sandor Hervey divided semiotics into three types according to the scope of studies: wide, medium and narrow. The “semiotic theories with a wide scope” involve all the contents of communication and everything that “signifies” is within the scope of semiotic studies. The theories of Peirce and Morris belong to this type. The “semiotic theories with a medium scope” can be divided into two types: one only involves the intentional and conventional forms of communication, and the theories of John L. Austin, John Searle and Louis J. Prieto all belong to this type; the other type only involves the systematic forms of communication, namely all the forms that can constitute a system of “signification,” and it includes Roland Barthes’s theory. The “semiotic theories with a narrow scope,” in principle, are limited to researches on the system of communicative conventions, namely researches on signs as a system of communicative conventions, and Saussure’s and functionalist theories belong to this type (Le 1994: 15). In Guiraud’s opinion, there are basically three schools of semiotics: the first only studies nonverbal communication defined as a system of nonlinguistic signals; the second school, holding the same view as Saussure, extends the concepts of signs and signals to such social interaction behaviors as protocol, etiquette, and politeness; the last one believes that all art and literature are using systems of signs, which belong to the general theory of signs (Li 1986: 89). Gou Zhixiao believes that based on different emphasis and backgrounds, semiotic theories can be categorized into four schools: structuralist semiotics, analytic philosophy-based semiotics, Soviet semiotics and Chinese semiotics. Structuralist semiotics is represented by Ferdinand de Saussure, Ernst Cassirer, Susanne Langer, Levi-Strauss and Jean Piaget, and it serves as foundation for the regeneration of modern semiotics. Analytic philosophy-based semiotics is represented by Charles S. Peirce, Bertrand Russell, Karl Popper, Charles Morrisand

2.2 Semiotics

73

Ludwig Wittgenstein (Gou 1993: 56). Soviet semiotics is represented by the Tartu-Moscow school led by Yuri Lotman. We divide the study of semiotics into three directions: linguistic, nonlinguistic and eclectic. The first one, a linguistic approach to semiotics, is represented by Ferdinand de Saussure, Louis Hjelmslev and Roland Barthes, the second by Charles S. Peirce, Charles Morris and Thomas Sebeok, and the third by Umberto Eco and other Italian semioticians. What mainly differentiates their standpoints is whether language structure should be the model or blueprint of nonlinguistic cultural phenomena (Wang 1999: 6–7). Li Youzheng classifies the research fields of contemporary semiotics into linguistic semiotics, general semiotics and cultural semiotics. Linguistic semiotics focuses on theories of language structure, semantic structure and discourse-level analysis, which is a microscopic research on linguistic signs. The earliest representative argument is Saussure’s theory of two dimensions of language. Research of this area, including structural analysis of language, semantics, discourse and text, is rather profound and concrete. Semioticians have extended their studies from analysis of linguistic signs to that of nonlinguistic signs (including signs of artificial intelligence), thus establishing general semiotics, which brings every sign and symbol related to human life to the semiotic sphere. Analysis of materialistic, spiritual and behavioral phenomena in socio-cultural life from a semiotic perspective, in Li’s opinion, falls to the category of cultural semiotics, which covers semiotics related to architecture, cinema, drama, consciousness, etc. (Li 1993: 5–6). The above overview shows the disagreement semioticians hold in the classification of semiotics. We believe that it is reasonable to divide semiotics into linguistic, nonlinguistic and eclectic directions. And in this book, we mainly discuss linguistic semiotics.

2.2.5

The Significance of Semiotic Studies

Saussure and Peirce proposed the concept of semiotics a hundred year ago, but semiotic studies started to speed up only decades ago. A unified scientific system of semiotics has not yet been established. Different schools of theory coexist with each other. A set of important issues like the definition, impact and cognition of semiotics are to be settled. In this sense, semiotics is a developing discipline. At the same time, however, we should see the big momentum of its development, the extensive fields that it involves and the fact that it is a universally recognized cross-discipline and cross-field methodology. It is because of the close relation of signs to human civilization and to the world that semiotics, a science studying the essence and the rules of signs, is of great importance and value. The significance of semiotic studies lies in:

74

2 Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics

(1) We are in a world that is full of signs, so our mindset, language and communication can’t be separated from signs. And the deeper research of signs will surely bring about our further understanding of the world, the mindset and ourselves. (2) As a new discipline, semiotics has achieved rapid development in just a few decades. It not only occupies an important position in today’s academic circle but also involves a wide range of research areas, which is enough to show that semiotics has great academic tension and potential. (3) Semiotics has become an interdisciplinary and cross-cutting methodology and is becoming an important part of the epistemology and methodology of contemporary humanities and social sciences. Its influence involves all humanities and social sciences. Therefore, in-depth study of semiotics is bound to promote the further deepening of other related disciplines. (4) Since the 1960s, the “scientific” trend of humanities has become increasingly obvious. Semiotics just aims to promote the standardization and scientification of humanities and social sciences.

2.3

Linguistic Semiotics

Though the idea of semiotics was first introduced by Saussure, it has always failed to “marry” linguistics since its budding day. In this regard, both semioticians and linguists feel helpless and regretful. What’s the reason for this situation? On the one hand, semiotics has been expanding infinitely while linguistics hasn’t. Since its introduction, semiotics has spread rapidly and been used in all areas of humanities and social sciences and natural sciences. However, the infinite expansion of a research object may be a killing blow to a discipline, which makes people have a fuzzy understanding of such original questions as “what is sign” and “what is semiotics” and will further cause difficulties in understanding the ontology of semiotics. A famous Russian scholar Mikhail Viktorovich Nikitin holds that semiotics covers various fields, including psychology and psychological analysis, psychiatry and sexology, feminism and masculinism, theory of perception, suggestion and pleasure, theory of personality, exchange and interpersonal interaction, communication theory and meaning theory, art theory (film, drama, painting, music, etc.), necromancy and armomancy (ideology, mythology and religion), linguistics, literary criticism, poetics, structuralism, relativism, formalism, symbolism and other aspects at different levels. With its extensive scope, semiotics has to categorize various fields by the difference between the signifier and the signified.” (Nikitin 1997: 3) Hence, linguists feel a sense of admiration for semiotics and can’t help staying at a respectful distance from it. On the other hand, semiotics, as an analytical method in humanities, also has an ambiguous relationship with linguistics. Although semiotics is often in an embarrassing position in ontology, it highlights its unique charm in methodology and

2.3 Linguistic Semiotics

75

epistemology and plays an important role in the study of various disciplines, such as literary criticism, architecture, music, film, folklore and so on. In view of this situation, Li Youzheng gives the best explanation: “the contrast between the weak status of semiotics in the field of science and the high efficacy of semiotics as a method of humanistic science analysis not only reflects the existence of semiotics’ inner academic tension, but also reflects the characteristics of humanistic science that semiotics belongs to…there exists inconsistency between the unknown discipline status of semiotics and its real impact. (Li 1999: 3) We all know that linguistics is a humanistic science which intends to “lead science.” If linguistics does not absorb the essence of semiotic epistemology or methodologies, its development will slow down or even stop sooner or later. In the face of the above contradictions, our task is not to find an appropriate ontology support for semiotics but to establish a “real relationship” between linguistics and semiotics by analyzing linguistic phenomena from the perspective of semiotics. In fact, linguistics and semiotics have already enjoyed a natural connection since Saussure put forward the notion of semiotics and Peirce established the semiotic system, which can be discussed from two points of view: (1) Typically, the European semiotics following Saussure has been emphasizing the influence of linguistics over semiotics. It claims that, the study patterns in linguistics are most sufficient and developed when being applied to other semiotic studies. Some linguistic concepts—system, syntax, meaning and distinctive contrast—have been proven to be successful in the study of other fields. Language, the object of linguistics, exists as the interpreter of other semiotic systems. Hjelmslev proposed the idea of “interpretability” of language, believing that language is an interpreting system of all other semiotic systems. Roman Jakobson also stressed that language plays a central part in semiotic systems, and he further applied linguistic approaches to the study of poetics. Barthes even held the idea that semiotics is part of linguistics. The typical view of the Russian school of semiotics is that linguistic signs belong to the primary modeling system, while other signs including signs of religion, literature, art and architecture are in the secondary modeling system. The primary modeling system can interpret the secondary modeling system. (2) As a general epistemological and methodological science, semiotics also imposes an undisputed influence on linguistics. Firstly, the study of semiotics helps linguistics shift its study status from peripheral to leading. In this aspect, Saussure’s ideas of language system, values, structures and so forth are all rooted in the theory that viewing language as a sign system. The task that puts linguistics into a broader study atmosphere to get rid of closure, as Saussure proposed, is actually achieved. Secondly, priorities, as Saussure plans, should be given to semiotics and linguistics studies concerned about syntax and semantics so as to weaken the impact of phonology research. The division, made by Morris, between syntax, semantics and pragmatics has totally changed the research perspectives on traditional linguistic issues. Thirdly, the attitudes toward linguistic semiotics have attracted people’s attention to the semiotic

76

2 Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics

features of language units. On the one hand, it significantly helps get rid of the idealism that advocates to separate signs and their connotations from reality; on the other, it overcomes the metaphysics tendency that equates signs to their signifiers. Linguistic issues, therefore, can be explained by philosophical ontology, and more importantly, meaning has finally received enough attention in linguistic studies. Fourthly, the interdisciplinary nature of semiotics has promoted comparative studies of language and other phenomena related to human life. Semiotics provides a solid theoretical foundation for linguistic scholars to incorporate materials from other areas of knowledge, such as ethnology, literature and archeology in particular, into interdisciplinary studies. As for this aspect, semiotics provides a united base of theory and methodology for the study on different phenomena. Fifthly, semiotic studies from the linguistic perspective have corrected the wrong view that language is regarded as a name table, which leads researchers to pay enough attention to individual units and overall functions of language. (Ermolenko et al. 1992: 281–282) In this sense, based on the independency of and interaction between linguistics and semiotics, the combination of the two disciplines is a practical and optimal choice, which allows them to develop in radically different directions. For these reasons, we re-emphasize that: (1) language itself is a special sign system. It possesses not only general features of signs but also a series of properties such as arbitrariness, stability, evolvability, versatility, compatibility, firstness, linearity, separability, dependence, productivity and systematicness which make it a special subdiscipline of the sign system. Moreover, language serves as a tool of metalanguage to explain semiotics; more importantly, the nature and features of language represent the profound meaning and scientific value of semiotics; (2) semiotics has a close link with cognitive science and noetic science whose methodologies have guiding significance on semiotic studies; (3) semiotics studies the noumenon (sign plus sign), object (sign plus the signified) and subject (sign plus the user), which reflects the essence of the subjective and objective worlds. And the compatibility of research objects enables it to be combined with the three leading subjects of linguistics: syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Semiotics is an interdisciplinary discipline. If we try to define it, it should be a discipline which not only studies linguistic signs but also linguistics from the perspective of semiotics. The framework of linguistic semiotics should include (1) Introduction to linguistic semiotics: signs and language, semiotics and linguistics and theoretical foundation of linguistic semiotics; (2) Basic ideas of linguistic semiotics: binary opposition, stratification, meaning, reference, tense of linguistic signs, relations between linguistic signs, functional view of linguistic signs, subject concept of linguistic signs, as well as reversibility, markedness and iconicity of linguistic signs; (3) Research and prospect of linguistic semiotics

2.3 Linguistic Semiotics

77

Linguistic semiotics is a pioneering discipline which fills the gap in semiotic studies. In that sense, it is the responsibility of scholars and researchers to connect their linguistic and semiotic studies with the world’s advanced science and culture, which will in turn help promote the research of the two disciplines. More importantly, it will help open up a new research field by integrating the study of linguistics and semiotics, which will provide an important scientific basis that allows linguistics to become a leading science.

Chapter 3

The Binary Opposition of Linguistic Signs

“Langue” and “parole” are not distinguished and usually considered as a pair of synonyms in daily use, whereas in linguistic semiotics, they are absolutely two different terms with different connotations. To distinguish and understand the binary opposition between “langue” and “parole” is the initial approach to linguistic semiotics.

3.1

The Status of Language in Speech Acts

As early as the beginning of the nineteenth century, German linguist Wilhelm von Humboldt underscored the necessity of distinguishing between langue and parole. And it was Ferdinand de Saussure, Swiss linguist, who made systematically theoretical explanations to the difference between langue and parole. Saussure believed that individuals’ speech acts involve psychological, physiological, physical, personal and social phenomena, which are heterogeneous rather than homogeneous. So it is of no possibility to conduct a scientific analysis of such a complex. And the task of linguistics is to extract something homogeneous from complicated speech acts. Only in this way can linguistics find its research object. In order to find, from a whole speech act, the part correspondent to language (namely language localisation—author’s note), we must examine the individual act from which a circuit of speech acts can be reconstructed. This act requires at least two individuals and without this minimum the circuit would not be complete. For example, there are two people, A and B, talking to each other. The starting point of the circuit is either in the brain of A or B, where facts of consciousness which we shall call concepts are associated with representations of linguistic signs or sound-image by means of which they may be expressed. Then, the brain transmits to the organs of phonation an impulse corresponding to the sound-image. Next, the sound waves are sent from A’s mouth to B’s ears. And the circuit continues in B in the opposite order—from ear to brain. In the brain, the sound-image associates with © Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_3

79

80

3 The Binary Opposition of Linguistic Signs

the corresponding concept. (If B speaks in response, he just follows a reverse circuit.) (Fig. 3.1, Table 3.1) Saussure noted that in the circuit represented above, what distinguishes the third phase from other phases is that it happens externally, a physical process of sound transmission, which cannot represent the nature of the process of speech acts. For those who do not understand one certain language, the third phase is nothing but a meaningless physical phenomenon (for instance, when hearing a foreign language spoken, we may feel it makes no sense to us because of our failure to comprehend). Therefore, this phase is not the object of linguistic studies. The second and fourth phases take place internally, which are purely physiological and individual, so they cannot be regarded as guidelines for speech acts. Just as the nature of music does not rely on whether there is anything wrong with the musical instrument; similarly, the sickness of vocal cords and eardrums (e.g., hoarseness and hearing impairment) cannot change the guidelines for speech acts. Individual pronunciation and hearing should be the object of studies of physiology or medical science rather than linguistics. The first and fifth phases are merely a psychological process, which is different from that of the rest phases. The first phase means an active action involving the transmission of concepts to sound-image, which is highly individual; while the fifth phase (from sound-image to concepts) refers to a passively receptive process. “The individual’s receptive and coordinating faculties build up a stock of imprints which turn out to be for all practical purposes the same as the next person’s.” Language as a passively recorded product contains a treasure comprised of images of words and a latent grammatical system that exists in the brains of the members of a given social community. Thus, as we can see, only the last phase has a decisive significance to the formation of a unified language. If we extract from what we hear the same sound-image as the members of the social community feel, and connect it with the corresponding concepts (namely the common perceptions of the social community), we can find how a sign is associated with another sign.

Fig. 3.1 Speech acts

3.1 The Status of Language in Speech Acts

81

Table 3.1 Speech acts Phase

Circuit

Process

Property

1

C!I

2

I!M

3

M!E

4

E!I

5

I!C

Concepts associated with sound-image Sound-image transmitted to organs of phonation Sound transmission (from A’s mouth to B’s ears) Sound converted into sound-image Sound-image associated with concepts

Psychological image; individual practice Physiological phenomenon; individual phenomenon Physical phenomenon; natural phenomenon Physiological phenomenon; individual phenomenon Psychological image; social phenomenon

In other words, through a large amount of I!C practice of speech, the same images of words and grammatical systems are gradually developed in the brains of a group of individuals, which are never complete in any single individual, but exit perfectly only in the collectivity, and are not interfered by the individual’s will. To summarize, language can be localized in that particular section of the speech circuit where sound-image is associated with concepts, which is a social (not individual) part in the speech acts, and a passively recorded product rather than a manifestation of active executive. Language is a system of signs associated with psychological phenomena; it is homogeneous and of primary importance in the speech acts, and therefore should be studied primarily.

3.2

Features of Langue and Parole

We can conclude a formula from Saussure’s speech circuit: speech acts = langue + parole. The formula indicates that langue, a part of speech acts separate from parole, is the “integral and concrete object of linguistics.”

3.2.1

Features of Langue

According to Saussure, language stands out as a well defined entity amid the disparate mass of linguistic facts. It may be characterized as follows (Lodge 1999, 7): (1) “It can be localized in that particular section of the speech circuit where sound patterns are associated with concepts.”—Langue finds itself between I and C. (2) “It is the social part of language, external to the individual, who by himself is powerless either to create it or to modify it. It exists only in virtue of a kind of

82

3 The Binary Opposition of Linguistic Signs

contract agreed between the members of a community.”—Langue is the social part which is conventional in nature. (3) “It is a system of signs in which the one essential is the union of sense and sound pattern, both parts of the signs being psychological.”—Langue is a homogeneous system of signs comprising sound pattern and sense which are psychological in nature. (4) “It is an object that may be studied independently. Dead languages are no longer spoken, but we can perfectly well acquaint ourselves with their linguistic structures”—Langue is tangible, which, separate from parole, may be studied qualitatively. (5) “It can only be assimilated gradually. It is quite separate from speech: A man who loses the ability to speak none the less retains his grasp of the language system, provided he understands the vocal signs he hears.”—Langue is something definite which may be retained and acquired gradually.

3.2.2

Features of Parole

Like langue, parole also has five features: (1) Parole is a mass part of speech acts separate from langue. (2) Parole is the individual part of speech acts. (3) Parole is a physical, physiological and psychological phenomenon, which is different from person to person. (4) Parole is an object of study of different disciplines. Parole linguistics is secondary, which has no independent and self-sufficient object of study. (5) If parole is lost or not acquired, the ability to use the parole will not be acquired or retained (e.g., wolf child and aphasia). In short, langue is the structural and social part of speech acts while parole is individual and possible. The former is a system in which linguistic signs are interconnected, and it is a convention agreed by the members of a community; the latter is the outcome of using the langue for interpersonal communication. And langue is prior to parole—“A science which studies linguistic structure is not only able to dispense with other elements of language, but is possible only if those other elements are kept separate” (Lodge 1999, 7). Linguistics which aims at the study of speech acts must prioritize the study of langue. And the study of langue and the study of parole are two routes which cannot be taken simultaneously. Only by laying aside the historical change of a language can we perceive the relationship between all elements of the language system for language is a synchronic system of linguistic signs.

3.2 Features of Langue and Parole

3.2.3

83

Relations Between Langue and Parole

While defining langue, Saussure neglected parole to some extent. We hold that it is acceptable to emphasize langue but definitely unacceptable to neglect parole. Only by studying parole can we establish the status of langue for the two are closely connected with each other. (1) Langue is necessary to make parole understood while parole is indispensible in establishing langue. (2) Langue is abstract while parole is concrete. Only through parole can we observe and study langue. (3) Historically, “parole always takes precedence” in the occurrence of langue as a whole and the establishment of individual langue. A langue is formed through numerous practices of parole. It is by listening to others that one learns his native langue. (4) The constantly changing parole contributes to the evolution of relatively stable langue. Parole is creative, and the change of langue in the human society starts from the change of individual parole. The evolution of speech acts, as it were, takes its motivation from individuals. In a word, “langue is the instrument and the product of parole.” Langue creates parole and forms itself in parole. Terence Hawkes, British semiologist, gives an insightful description of the relations between langue and parole in his book, Structuralism and Semiotics: Parole, it follows, is the small part of the iceberg that appears above the water. Langue is the larger mass that supports it, and is implied by it, both in speaker and hearer, but which never itself appears…Language is intangible and never appears all at once in its entirety, but only in the incomplete performance of part of the repertoire by individual speakers… (Hawkes 1987, 12–13)

3.3

The Binary Opposition Between Langue and Parole

Saussure divided the common phenomena of human language into two dimensions —langue and parole. It is very necessary to further study the opposite relations of these two dimensions of linguistic signs. Studies from different perspectives reveal many different opposite relations between langue and parole. Chinese scholars, such as Li Youzheng and Hua Shao, have drawn relatively comprehensive conclusions on such opposite relations based on Saussure’s perceptions. According to Li (1993, 120), characteristics of these two opposite concepts can be listed as follows (Table 3.2).

84 Table 3.2 Characteristics of langue and parole

3 The Binary Opposition of Linguistic Signs Langue

Parole

Sociality Synchronicity Structure Formality Independence Uniformity Internality System Regularity Collectivity Potentiality Statics

Individuality Diachronicity Event Substantiality Dependence Diversity Externality Process Factuality Individuality Actuality Dynamics

Hua discusses the binary opposition between langue and parole from four aspects: (1) the opposition between the specific executive function and the general directive function; The unit of parole, a manifestation of the correspondent unit of langue, is specific and physical (audible and visible); the unit of langue (e.g., phoneme, morpheme, word, sentence, etc.), as a result of generalization, is abstract and substantial, which only contains some basic features of the unit of parole and is the typical analogue to the abstracted and processed unit of parole. The unit of parole, representing the unit of langue, engages in communication directly, so it is ontological (primary), actual and executive; the unit of langue, the embodiment of speech communication rules and principles, is formalized, potential and directive. The unit of parole, a personal phenomenon which varies from person to person, embodies the differences in application, so it is a variant; the unit of langue, a social phenomenon established by convention, is a constant which is the assembly and representation of variants with common characteristics. (2) the opposition between the coherence of discourse and the hierarchy of structural units; From the perspective of the formation of coherent discourse and structural system, the unit of parole is different from the unit of langue. The units of parole in the coherent discourse are continuous and are sometimes not clear-cut and hard to separate; the units of langue that form the structural system are discontinuous and are integrated based on different relations.

3.3 The Binary Opposition Between Langue and Parole

85

The units of parole in the discourse are arranged in a linear way (that is, any discourse is formed successively rather than simultaneously) while the units of langue in the system are hierarchical and stratified. The units that constitute a system are limited in quantity while the units that constitute an ever-changing discourse are limitless. The limited units of langue appear repeatedly in speech acts and speech products which are hardly identical. (3) the opposition between the dependence of parole on context and the separation of langue from context From the degree of independence, langue is the common wealth of the members of a social community, and is therefore unintentional and not controlled by the individual’s will; parole embodies the thoughts, feelings and especially intentions (including morality, emotion and aesthetic judgment) of a speaker and is therefore purposeful and intentional. In addition, parole is constrained by the context, in which the corresponding relations between the content and things, events and facts form the so-called reference; parole occurs under certain space–time conditions and therefore is localized and constrained by certain events and space; the content of parole varies on authenticity from the real world to the virtual world. In short, compared with parole, langue is independent of any individual, situation and space–time and therefore has nothing like intention, evaluation, reference, modality and authenticity of information. (4) the opposition between the variability of parole and the stability of langue; In terms of development, parole is a product that applies the old language to the new reality and is therefore dynamic and ever-changing, which otherwise may fail to adapt to different kinds of communication; nevertheless langue, as a tool, is relatively stable. According to Humboldt, everyone expresses his/her unique personality through parole which features certain creativity; langue, as a means of transforming something subjective to something objective, is compulsory. Parole involves certain arbitrariness and even mistakes. Lev Vladimirovich Sherba observed that an individual’s unprepared conversations may contain staggering mistakes. However, the conventionality of langue constrains such arbitrariness in some degree. And such changing and creative arbitrariness is limited by objective, stable and mandatory conventions. While arbitrariness is a prerequisite for individual expression, conventionality is a guarantee for social communication. The arbitrariness of parole is not unhelpful; on the contrary, it is the gradual evolution of parole that leads to the historical change of langue which transits from one relatively stable system in certain historical period to another; hence, langue can be studied diachronically and synchronically. However, it is noteworthy that the diachronic approach does not apply to parole which makes the historical change of

86

3 The Binary Opposition of Linguistic Signs

Table 3.3 Four aspects regarding the binary opposition between langue and parole Opposition

Langue

Parole

Directive function and executive function

Abstractness Substantiality Virtualization Sociality Constant Discontinuity Integration Limitation Repetition Potentiality Independence Non-localization Ambiguity Statics Objectiveness Compulsoriness Conventionality Historicality

Specificity Physicality Reality Individuality Variant Continuity Linearity Non-limitation Non-repetition Actuality Constraint Localization Informativity Dynamics Subjectiveness Creativity Arbitrariness Non-historicality

Hierarchy and coherence

Separation and dependence

Stability and variability

langue possible, for speech acts only exist for a very short time and speech products, once recorded, exist forever. From this point of view, speech acts and speech products do not have anything to do with history, nor with diachronic study. The above four aspects regarding the binary opposition between langue and parole can be summarized as follows (Table 3.3).

Chapter 4

The Hierarchy of Linguistic Signs

4.1

The Hierarchical Approach in a Broad Sense

Two theories prevail in linguistics—entity theory and procedural theory. Entity theory uses the communicative function of language to solve the problem of language structure, and it gives priority to vocabulary-grammar, while procedural theory solves the problem by structural function, and it puts the hierarchy of language units as its first consideration. Language falls into the domain of signs, and it’s a special sign system, which means that linguistic signs share some similarities in hierarchy with signs in a broad sense. We know that sign system in a broad sense is, in general, divided into three hierarchies: (1) Sub-signs hierarchy, also called carrier hierarchy, is the material carrier of information, such as human motions in semaphore, spots and lines in a telegram codebook, form and position of music notes, letters in Western languages, basic strokes in Chinese characters; (2) Signs hierarchy, in which signs are entities of information and certain material carriers, such as the entity of certain motions and their referential meanings in semaphore, music notes with properties (volume, pitch and duration) and meanings, sounds (or strokes) and their meanings like the Chinese characters; (3) Hyper-signs hierarchy, also named signs categorial hierarchy, in which the combination of continuation signs delivers coherent messages to reach the goal of exchanging thought, like a series of semaphore, a newspaper article, a piece of music, an essay. Correspondingly, linguistic signs can also be categorized into three hierarchies: (1) Sub-signs hierarchy (the sign-to-be signs hierarchy), which centers on phonemes, and also includes syllables and some differentiated signs; (2) Signs hierarchy (the expression sign hierarchy of languages), which includes phonemes as well as the combination of words, phrases, Chengyu (a type of traditional Chinese idiomatic expression, most of which consist of four characters) and so on; (3) Hyper-signs hierarchy (the situation signs hierarchy of language), which centers © Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_4

87

88

4 The Hierarchy of Linguistic Signs

on sentences, and also includes complex sign units such as complex sentences, supra-sentential unity, texts. As has been discussed above, linguistic signs are more than just a sign system. It is complicated. Hence, it is insufficient to analyze linguistic phenomena only by hierarchical divisions in a broad sense, and we should make further analysis on linguistic signs by applying theories of cognitive science and language science.

4.2

The Hierarchical Approach in a Narrow Sense

Cognitive science tells us that the world is complicated, colorful and objective. A hierarchical objective world is featured by its hierarchy, which is not only an attribute, but a tool, a method or an approach for people to understand things. The concept of hierarchy is generally considered to be introduced into linguistics by American descriptive linguists. In An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, Henry Gleason mentioned the hierarchies of structure, analysis and speech (Gleason 1956). Hierarchy of language signs is an important and integral part of the theory of the linguistic sign system. Noam Chomsky said in Syntactic Structures, “The central concept of linguistic theory is the concept of ‘language hierarchy’.” (Chomsky 1979, 4) Former Soviet Union linguist Natalya Alexandrovna Slyusareva also emphasized, “Language hierarchy is given top priority in modern linguistics” (Slyusareva 1969). According to the different natures and functions of language units and the relations between them, the linguistic sign system is partitioned into several branch systems or subsystems, namely the hierarchies of linguistic signs. The concept of hierarchy is relevant to language as such, as well as the research and description methods of the linguistic sign system. And the prospect of different hierarchies will be obtained after analyzing language from different perspectives. For example, in his work Language Teaching Analysis, Canadian professor William Mackey listed the hierarchical divisions of language signs conducted by seven linguists as follows (Table 4.1) (Mackey 1976). Besides, another two linguists should be mentioned. One is AndréMartinet who put forward the concept of double articulation. The first is articulation of monemes, generally correspondent to morpheme, including expression and content. Only a few thousands of monemes exist, yet they can form infinite numbers sentences. And the second is articulation of phonemes only involves expression. The signifier of phonemes is comprised of dozens of phonemes (Martinet 1949). Another linguist, Emile Benveniste, divided language into five levels with five corresponding linguistic units: (1) distinction level—phonemic distinction; (2) phoneme level; (3) morpheme level—morpheme; (4) lexeme level—lexeme; (5) rheme level— sentence. He regarded the phonemic distinction as the lower limit and sentence as the upper limit and considered phoneme, morpheme and lexeme as the units in middle levels. In addition, morpheme and lexeme are also symbolic units (Benveniste 1962).

4.2 The Hierarchical Approach in a Narrow Sense

89

Table 4.1 Levels of language analysis BRØNDAL sound symbolism

FIRTH

phonetics

sounds and sound systems syllabation and stress phonetic function phonetic syntax shape of words word-formation inflections agreement parts of speech word-order sentence and sentence elements style semantics

C phonology o n t e x lexicology t S i collocation t u a t i o grammar n

HALLIDAY

PIKE

CHOMSKY

ULLMANN

HARRIS

phonology

phonology

SUBSTANCE phonic and graphic

phonology

phonology F O R M

morphophonemics lexicology morphology

morphology

transformations

lexis and grammar grammar

phrasestructure

syntax

context SITUATION extra-linguistic

In terms of the hierarchical classification, Qi Yucun, a Chinese linguist, said, “Linguistic units of the same level are relatively homogeneous and close to each other, with almost the same attributes and functions. All the levels come with corresponding linguistic units. There are two criteria in linguistic units: (1) sound– meaning combination; (2) linguistic units are settled, not freely combined.” (Qi 1983, 34) According to these criteria, Qi divided language into six linguistic hierarchies with six corresponding language units: (1) morpheme level—morpheme; (2) word level—word; (3) idiom level—idiom; (4) word-formation level— word formation; (5) phrase formation level—phrase formation; (6) sentence formation level—sentence formation or sentential form. (Qi 1983, 36) Objectively speaking, each hierarchical classification aforementioned makes sense, and we cannot easily decide which is right or wrong. However, these

90

4 The Hierarchy of Linguistic Signs

classifications are seemingly disordered. In the following part, we will make some analyses from three perspectives based on cognitive science and thoughts from linguist Hua Shao, and we will come up another hierarchical classification. (Wang 1997b)

4.2.1

The Ontological Approach

“Ontology,” a philosophical term, “is part of the study on the origin or nature of the world” (Hai 1980). To comprehend the hierarchies of languages from the view of ontology, we should study language essentially by catching the natural constitution of language phenomena, with objective existence as the basis. Proceeding from ontology, language hierarchies can be classified as “partial subsystems with collections of same language units,” which are established gradually through analyses of language in different phases. We may as well draw an outline of language hierarchies by the Tables 4.2 and 4.3. The two tables can be explained as follows: (1) The partition of hierarchy (see Table 4.1) can be explored from two aspects, one is concrete, observable (left column), and the other abstract and general (right column). The left column is a real and natural chain. If we put sentence (выcкaзывaниe) as the top hierarchical extreme and allophone (aллoфoн) as the bottom hierarchy extreme, the whole chain should be arranged: from bottom to top—the units in the lower hierarchy would act as upper-level elements to enter the upper hierarchy, a process of integration; from top to bottom—the units in the upper hierarchy pave the way for those in the lower hierarchy, a process of differentiation and a priority for language analysis. The right chain is the abstract reflection of the left, in which there exists no real “real” chain, and those hierarchies have no “composition” or “iteration.” The main task of the right is to categorize the correspondent units for the benefit of abstract research. If we use the X and Y axes in Table 4.2 to represent both chains, we can call the vertical and downward relation segmentation (ceгмeнтaция). It means that we divide the sentence into several units that can form bigger units. We call the horizontal and rightward relation distribution (диcтpибyция), which is the different distributions in the same hierarchy (one appears in the concrete discourse, and the other is reflected in the brain). They are the basis of moving from the concrete to the abstract (Table 4.3). (2) Classification of hierarchy is based on objective units of language. Language can be classified into phoneme, morpheme, lexeme and syntax, for the

4.2 The Hierarchical Approach in a Narrow Sense Table 4.2 Language hierarchies

91

Concrete hierarchies

Abstract hierarchies

Sentence Word Morph Allophone

Syntax Lexeme Morpheme Phoneme

Table 4.3 Language hierarchies

distribution ┌───────→ │ Segmentation│

↑ integration

│ │

differentiation

│

↓

↓ (segmentation)

existence of different language units of the same name (phonemic, morphemic, lexemic and syntactic). However, the rhetorical level cannot be singled out for there does not exist any rhetorical unit in linguistics. In addition, the classification of the four language hierarchies is an attempt, in which the use of terms would confront with the terms mentioned before. For instance, “morpheme” was originally called “word,” and “word” and “sentence” used to be called “word form” and “utterance.” We see that the names of terms are complex and confusing in the past, and they lacked correspondence, which needs to be revised. (3) The left hierarchy appears in discourse with linear property (linear property means that different language units cannot be spoken simultaneously), and it belongs to the parole category whose partition is associated with the feature of separation in linguistics; the right hierarchy doesn’t appear in discourse with nonlinear property, and it belongs to the langue category whose partition of language is generalized and related with the feature of identity in linguistics. (4) The left and right hierarchies are interdependent and also distinguished from each other. The left is the entity of the right in parole, while the right is the generalization of the left in langue; in other words, the left is the expression of the right in parole, while the right is the collection of the left in the language

92

4 The Hierarchy of Linguistic Signs

system. According to the horizontal relationship in Table 4.2, the left is the representation, manifestation or realization of the right. (5) Logically speaking, the left-to-right column follows the principle of induction, from particular to general; while in turn, conforms to the principle of deduction, from general to particular. (6) The left column is anoetic (этичecкий) hierarchy. It is characterized by ignoring differences and emphasizing reflection. The right column is anemic (эмичecкий) level, characterized by a comparative analysis to reach general and distinguishing features.

4.2.2

The Methodological Approach

Methodology is the theory that helps people to understand and change the world. It requires people to proceed from reality, view the issues objectively, historically and comprehensively, deal with the issues case by case and actively change the world by developing practical plans based on the subjective and objective conditions. With the increasingly in-depth linguistic studies, language itself is becoming a multifaceted and multilevel research object. Linguists apply the research methods of language to make a division of linguistic hierarchies, which is unnatural though, but it can help make the research convenient and the recognition of the research object full. From the view of methodology, language is divided into four hierarchies as follow (Table 4.4).

4.2.2.1

Phonological Hierarchy

The phonological hierarchy centers phoneme and also researches in allophone, syllable and toneme. (1) Phoneme Phoneme is the minimal phonetic unit used to compose and distinguish morphology and sounds. For instance, the morphology of “мaк” can be divided into such three phonetic units as “м,” “a” and “к,” all of which can be distinguished from

Table 4.4 Linguistic hierarchy

Linguistic hierarchy Phoneme level Morpheme level Syntactic level Lexical–semantic level

4.2 The Hierarchical Approach in a Narrow Sense

93

phonemes in other morphology, such as [м]aк(poppy), [p]aк(shrimp), [т]aк(so), [б] aк(tank) and [B]AК (Supreme Arbitration Commission). (2) Allophone Allophone is the smallest unit in speech flow with no sense, and it comprises vowels and consonants. Different from phoneme, it is abstracted out of several allophones and possesses the function of identifying different morphology and sounds. (3) Syllable Syllable means one or more allophones that are uttered when a man exhales each time. Morphology is composed of one or a few open and close syllables. The basic rule of dividing Russian syllables is sonoristic theory which means using loudness to divide syllables. (4) Toneme Toneme is a segment of speech that carries meaning and cannot be split into smaller intonation unit. It centers on utterance and comprises one or several phonological words. A toneme is equivalent to a complete sentence. For example, “Oн вepнyлcя (He is back)” has one toneme—“ИК-1,” and “Oн вepнyлcя?” (“Is he back?”) bears one toneme—“ИК-3”; a tone can also be equivalent to part of the sentence. For instance, “B aвгycтe/y нeгo oтпycк.” (“He has a day off in August.”) has two tonemes—“ИК-1” and “ИК-3.” Toneme is occasionally called phonological sentence.

4.2.2.2

Morphological Hierarchy

The morpheme hierarchy includes two basic units, morpheme and word form. (1) Word Word is a collection of morphs with the same meaning and similar forms (phonemes). For example, root morphs “мopoз,” “мopoз,” “мopoж” and “мopaж” extracted, respectively, from morphology of words “мopoз (chill),” “мopoзить (frozen),” “зaмopoзят (frozen),” “мopoжy (frozen),” “мopoжeный (frozen)” and “зaмopaживaть (freeze)” form a root morph. That is to say, all the morphology of these words contains a root morph, but it is presented by different morphs in different morphology (e.g., мopoз/мopoз/мopoж/мopaж). (2) Morphology Morphology is the most important structural unit of inflected language and agglutinative language (namely language with affixes). Morphology preliminarily segments the words into the fixed part (stem) and the inflective part (suffix)—stem representing the lexical meaning and general syntactic meaning, and suffix representing partial syntactic meaning. For example, the stems of “Bижy (see)” and

94

4 The Hierarchy of Linguistic Signs

“cтeнy (wall)” are “виж-” and “cтeн-,” while their suffixes are “-y1” and “y-2.” The verbal stems signify the tense, and the noun stems signify the meaning of the things; the suffix “-y1” represents first person singular, and the suffix “-y2” is the second-case singular.

4.2.2.3

Syntactic Hierarchy

The syntactic hierarchy also includes two basic units: collocation and sentence. (1) Collocation Collocation is the syntax based on the subordinate relationship (concord, dominance, dependency). A collocation is composed of a dominant word and a subordinate word. The former is dominant in grammar (its lexical–grammatical nature determines the nature of relations), while the latter is subordinate in grammar. (2) Sentence Sentence is equipped with a predicate and a specific semantic structure and is organized by a certain structural mode. It is a statement that presents the predicate and semantic structure by syntactic form (polymer) and achieves communicative goal with the help of intonation.

4.2.2.4

Lexical–Semantic Hierarchy

Compared with the above three hierarchies, lexical–semantic hierarchy has the following characteristics: the first one is the intervention by humans. The intervention in lexicon of a language is direct and open (you will find it in different etymologies including Slavic words, East Slavic words, Russian native words, loanwords and international words). The second one is the “exteriority” of connection, which means the lexical–semantic system of a language is directly connected with the exterior structure. The exterior structure refers to communicative occasions of a register of language and speech activities. (For example, lexicon is endowed with different registers of language under the restriction of the extra-linguistic factors such as the field and context of communication.) The third one is “openness.” Lexical–semantic category is divided according to different semantics, so this category is not as closed as the phonological opposition or the grammatical category. The lexical–semantic hierarchy is generally composed of two forms—lexeme and lexical–semantic variant of words. (1) Lexeme The concept of which derives from Victor Vladimirovich Vinogradov’s statement is a collection of a words all forms and meanings. The lexeme reflects the word’s naming function and the ability to convey all words’ lexical and

4.2 The Hierarchical Approach in a Narrow Sense

95

grammatical meanings, and lexeme as the carrier of a lexical–semantic continuum is part of the lexical system in language. (2) Lexical–semantic variant of words A word’s lexical–semantic variant is the concrete linear unit and the representation of lexeme in speech, which always appears in a specific speech and is restricted by context.

4.2.3

The Epistemological Approach

Epistemology, the theory of studying the nature and the development of cognitive activities, mainly involves the relation of subject and object, the development of rational and perceptual knowledge and the essence and development of truth. The central issue of epistemology is to study the ways and rationality from matters to consciousness, among which the division of form and meaning plays an important role. With the deepening of the understanding of language, people began to study, from the epistemological point of view, the language levels, dividing language into two aspects—expression and content.

4.2.3.1

Expressive Level

Expressive hierarchy targets mainly at the phonological level of language, including such integration units as distinctive features, phonemes, syllables, phonological words or accent groups, phonological phrases, tonemes and phrase intonation. (1) Distinctive feature: A distinctive feature (or called correlated feature) is the only structural feature that differentiates a phoneme from the other (or others). For example, “п/п” are different from each other by velarization, while other structural features of “п/п” are similar. Therefore, velarization is the correlated feature of “п” while not is “п.” (2) Phoneme (omitted) (3) Syllable (omitted) (4) Phonological word: A phonological word is centered by accent syllables and is organized by several syllables. Technically, a phonological word is not a word but more like a phrase, thus can also be called a phonological phrase. Its constitution is closely related with the concept of accent, and thus, the phonological word can also be called accent group. Generally speaking, accent is a feature of notional words. Different morphology of a notional word has its own accent, while functional words don’t have accent themselves but constitute phonological words together with notional words.

96

4 The Hierarchy of Linguistic Signs

A phonological word is sometimes the morphology with one accent (three phonological words involved in “Boлoдя/читaeт/книгy” (“Volodya is reading a book”) and sometimes a combination of the morphology with accent and its adjacent functional word without accent. (5) Toneme (omitted) (6) Intonation, focusing on its patterns, is a speech pattern composed of one or more tonemes. Try to compare: “B aвгycтe y нeгo oтпycк?” (“Does he have a vocation in August?”) (Its intonation is composed of one toneme—“ИК-3.”) “B aвгycтe/y нeгo oтпycк.” (“He has a vacation in August.”) (Its intonation comprises two tonemes, namely “ИК-3” and “ИК-1.”)

4.2.3.2

Content Hierarchy

The content hierarchy is mainly manifested in the semantic level of language, including such integrated units as seme, sememes, onomatema and sentence meaning. (1) Sememe as the extreme unit in content level reflects some discriminating characteristic. For instance, From Table 4.5 we can see each cross is a discriminating characteristic that constitutes a seme. For example, “man” is composed of three semes including male, human and adult. (2) Sememe reflects the meaning of words, which is the smallest unit of meaning. Every sememe is composed of various discriminating characteristics and is often regarded as the operational unit for componential analysis. In the example above, the total of every word’s vertical characteristics constitutes its sememe. For example, the sememe of “woman” is “non-male,” “human,” “adult” and “not being dull”; the sememe of “ox” is “male,” “nonhuman,” “adult” and “being dull.” (3) Name, the meaning of the word in general, includes two parts—lexical name and grammatical name. The lexical onomatema is mainly an integration of the sememes of words, reflecting the distinctive features of a word as a whole and presenting a certain degree of individual distinction. For example, when comparing “идти”

Table 4.5 Examples Male Human Adult Dullness

Man

Woman

+ + + −

− + + −

Children

Ox

Cow

Calf

+ − −

+ − + +

− − + +

− − − +

4.2 The Hierarchical Approach in a Narrow Sense

97

(“walking”), “exaть” (“traveling”), “пoлзти” (“crawling”), “бpecти” (“running”), “плыть” (“floating”), “лeтeть” (“flying”), it is not difficult to find that they share some common meaning—“двигaтьcя, пepeмeщaтьcя в пpocтpaнcтвe” (“space-induced displacement movement”). However, the lexical onomatema of each word also have distinct features and thus have a distinguishing value. For example, the distinct features of the above words are mainly reflected in the displacement mode (“cпocoб пepeдвижeния”) such as “идти-пeшкoм” (“hike”), “exaть-пpи пoмoщи кaкиx-н. Cpeдcтв” (“with a certain vehicle”), “пoлзти-pyкaми, нoгaми или пpипaдaя тyлoвищeм к пoвepxнocти” (“hand, foot or body moving along a surface”), “бpecти- c тpyдoм” (“stodge”), “плыть-нa cyднe или Ha инoм плaвyчeм cpeдcтвe” (“by means of ships or other floating tools”), “лeтeть-пo вoздyxy” (“in the air”). Meaning reflected by the grammar elements is a supplement to the meaning of the lexical elements, and it mainly expresses the meaning of various relationships. For example, a certain category of meaning can indicate the word class attribute: the following words all mean “cold,” but the different categories of meaning determine their class attribute: мopoз (пpeдмeтнocть category meaning of “thing”)—noun; мopoзить (пpoцeccyaльнocть category meaning of “process”)—verb; мopoзный (пpизнaк category meaning of “characteristic”)—adjective. Similarly, the form of cтpaнa (nation) form shows that the word has grammatical meanings such as “negative, first person, singular”; the нaпиcaл (end) form indicates that the word has grammatical meanings such as “past, singular, positive, complete.” (4) Sentence meaning refers to two kinds of meanings. One is the meaning of a specific utterance. For example, all the translations in the parenthesis can be seen as the meaning of the specific utterance: ① Кpecтьянe тpyдятcя (Farmers are working); ② Cын paзбил cтaкaн (The son broke the glass); ③ Peбeнoк paдyeтcя (The baby is rejoicing); ④ Oтeц cepдитcя (The father is angry). The second is the abstract meaning shared by a series of sentences in language. Examples ① and ② represent the relationship between the subject and its specific actions. Examples ③ and ④ show the relationship between the subject and its emotional state. Obviously, this kind of abstract meaning mainly reflects the grammatical relationship of the semantic elements of a sentence, i.e., the semantic structure of a sentence (ceмaнтичecкaя cтpyктypa пpeдлoжeния). The semantic elements are formed by the interaction of the lexical and grammatical meanings of sentence components. The basic semantic elements include three core elements and four types of elements. Among the core elements are A. predicate, like “actions” or “states” in broad sense (In the above example, ① and ② reflect the characteristics of the movement; ③ and ④ reflect the characteristics of the state); B. subject, which refers to the agent of the action or the bearer of the state (e.g., кpecтьянe, cын is the agent of the action; peбeнoк, oтeц is the load of the state); C. object, which refers to the things that the actions involve and the states are facing (such as

98

4 The Hierarchy of Linguistic Signs

cтaкaн in Example ③). Dual-class elements include A. The subject of both the action and the state, such as У peбят нaлoвлeнo pыбы (The young guys caught a lot of fish there). Peбят is both the subject of the action of нaлoвлeнo pыбы (fishing) and the state of имeют pыбy (having fish); B. Both the subject of the state and the object of the action, such as Клyп пocтpoeн paбoчими (The club was built by the workers). Клyп is both the object of the action and the subject of the state formed after the action is over; C. The sparseness feature with subject meaning, such as B eгo дyшe cтpax (His heart is racing). B eгo дyшe has both the meaning of place and the meaning of subject; D. The sparseness feature with the meaning of object, such as B ceмью дaнo знaть o cлyчившeмcя (What happened has been notified to the family). B ceмию has the dual meaning of direction—“to home” and object—“family.”

4.3

The Basic Levels of Linguistic Signs

What we can see from the above analysis is that language can be divided into different hierarchies from different angles. However, which division is most reasonable and closest to the reality of language study? We believe the division of language hierarchies from the ontological perspective would be clearer and more acceptable, in which linguistic signs have four basic levels (phoneme, word, lexeme, syntax). This approach is explained as follows: (1) Corresponding to the four basic levels, there exist four kinds of language units —phoneme, morpheme, word and sentence, which are the smallest units carrying out some language functions and, respectively, occupy the extreme position of material carrier, meaning, naming and communication to generalize the essential function of language. Compared with these four units, others (morphphoneme, word formation, phrase, word group, phrase and idiom) only demonstrate quantitative distinctions with no qualitative distinctions involved and don’t have an independent function. (2) As the analytical basis of language, these four kinds of units can definitely disassembly any speeches. (3) The four basic levels in parole resemble a chain device, technically arranged into phoneme-morpheme-lexeme-syntax. They can only construct their upper level successively, not allowing to skip the adjacent level to construct interlayer units. There is a close relationship between the levels of linguistic signs, which usually plays an important role in linguistic studies. It’s an important task for linguists to explore their relations. The interrelations among these levels might be explored based on semiotic theory from three perspectives—syntactics, semantics and pragmatics.

4.3 The Basic Levels of Linguistic Signs

4.3.1

99

Syntactic Relation

Syntactics is the relation between signs in the linguistic sign system, so the levels of linguistic signs can be perceived as the structural relation among the levels. We can make a bidirectional structural analysis on the levels of language, which is a top-down process of segmentation and a bottom-up process of integration. The structural analysis demonstrates 1. One of the functions of each lower-level unit is constructing function. Its mission and value is to enter the upper level. The lower-level units serve the upper-level units, while the general goal is to compose sentences and complete the main purpose of communication. 2. If parts construct themselves into a whole, in general, they must abandon some old quality, receive something new, and in the meantime, the degree of freedom in them would be limited by the whole. To put it in another way, every unit in the lower levels would get new characteristics after entering the higher levels. Word, for example, becomes a structure component (also called sentence component—a research object in traditional syntax) or semantic component (research object for cases in grammar); a morph is changed into a root, affix or suffix; allophones whose distinctive features become the function of differentiating meanings, enter into the morphs and then enter the word. Meanwhile, the freedom of the lower-level units in the high-level units would be more limited, for example, when entering into sentence, the word’s meaning, binding power and grammatical form would all be restricted. 3. If the higher-level unit is composed of some elements from the lower-level units, these elements as a whole are not equal to a simple summation of the elements from the lower-level units; that is to say, the information content of the whole structure is larger than the summation of the content of those elements. The combination of the elements is neither unordered nor a mechanical assembly. They are constructed according to certain rules, and they interact with each other to exert an interactive action. This composition effect based on regularization and orderness produces new structural information. For example, while the original function of lexeme is to name, the words in a sentence can also interact with each other to form predictive, paralleled or extended relations. The same holds true for morphemes which interact with each other to form the word-building and form-building relations. 4. From the lower level to the upper level, the larger the number of units, the sparser the relationship between units and the less the cohesion in between. In the phonological level, although the language units are limited, the relationship among the phonemes is extremely close, which means that any increase or decrease of a phoneme would cause the change of its nature (such as the change of meaning: мaт—checkmate, mat, vanish, dirty words—мaть—mother); the change of the grammatical form: from мoзг to мoзг represents different cases in Russian; the change of the cohesion in morphemes, especially a small change of morphemes with grammatical meaning will cause change of the lexical system

100

4 The Hierarchy of Linguistic Signs

(various cases in the word “wall” in Russian such as cтeнa,cтeны, cтeнe,cтeнy, cтeнoй,o cтeнe). On the contrary, the relationship among words is much looser (e.g, the two following two different combinations do not affect the meaning of the phrase: гpaммaтичecкий ypoвeнь—ypoвeнь гpaммaтики); grammatical level: вeдpo, пoлнoe вoдoй—вeдpo, пoлнoe вoды/a bucket full of water); the system of sentences is a purely structural system, in which the relationship among units is looser, and sometimes is just a kind of restriction.

4.3.2

Semantic Relation

The semantic relation of the language levels refers to the relation between signs inside every hierarchy and the objective things represented by signs. Generally speaking, the lower the language level, the vaguer the signified of language units; the higher the language level, the clearer the meaning of the units. For example, in the phonological level, only some distinctions of phonemes exist while no meaning exists. However, in the morpheme level, we can perceive the existence of meaning or called the reflected meaning, which is still a kind of abstract concept without the function of naming. In Russian, “зeмл” (зeмл•яки) only denotes the concept related to “land”; yч (yч•итьcя) only denotes the concept related to “study”; мop (мop•cкoй) only denotes the concept related to “nautical.” To sum up, they don’t denote land, study and nautical, respectively, which means they don’t represent corresponding things. In the lexeme level, the level of abstraction is relatively lower, while the level of specification is higher. As lexis not only represents concept but also has the function of naming in a certain degree, so although its generic referential meaning does not specify reference and its grammatical meaning is latent, yet the generic referential meaning provides certain basis for people to understand certain kind of things in general. For example, зeмляки (fellow countryman), yчилищe (school) represent a certain kind of people and schools. The former is restricted by the denotative meaning—people who are born in the same place, and the latter is restricted by the denotative meaning—“secondary and primary schools.” In the syntax level, influenced by the context, the objective world requires sentences to have real meaning to distinguish itself from others. For example, Aнтoн и Cepeжa–зeмляки, oни yчaтcя в oднoм мopcкoм yчилищe, кoтopoe нaxoдиcя в гopoдe Bлaдивocтoк./(Anton and Seryozha are fellow countrymen and are from the same vocational school in Vladivostok). In this sentence, “fellow countrymen” actually refer to Anton and Seryozha, and they study in a “secondary marine school.” In addition, according to the reference of the specific context, the designated object is restricted to this “marine school” in Vladivostok.

4.3 The Basic Levels of Linguistic Signs

4.3.3

101

Pragmatic Relation

Pragmatic relation is between the signs and the subject who use the signs. From the perspective of linguistic hierarchy, the relation means human’s proper use of linguistic hierarchy. 4.3.3.1

Restriction

The higher linguistic hierarchy is the more the number of linguistic units are. Generally, the number of sentences is infinite in the higher hierarchy, while there are less units in lower hierarchy, which results from the law of nature and humans’ restriction. If some language consists of 35 different phonemes, and every morpheme consists of less than four phonemes, 1,544,760 words will be formed (hypothetically without the repeat of phonemes). So, if one word consists of four morphemes (prefix + root + suffix + suffix), the number of lexemes will be astronomical. However, it is not true in fact because human utilizes restriction to rationalize the number by using the limited units to meet the demand of communication. For example, the vocabulary of some developed language includes about 400,000 or 500,000 lexemes. This is the strength of language as special sign system.

4.3.3.2

Selection

Selection is another reason why the theoretical number doesn’t match reality. We know that the interaction of structural components in each linguistic hierarchy will possibly form many structure which, however, in reality probably will be eliminated or retained by the influence of human’s selection. For example, theoretically speaking, 我(I), 喝(drink), 茶(tea) can form six kinds of structures. In fact, there are only two existing in real life: “我喝茶,” “茶, 我喝” and other four structures have been eliminated by grammatical rules.

4.3.3.3

Economy

As the subject of using signs, people cannot possibly, in fact not necessarily, utilize all the linguistic units provided by linguistic hierarchies because utilizing too many signs is burdensome. Therefore, based on the principle of being economical, people only put those phonetic clusters, which are easy to recognize or remember with simple pronunciations and utilize transferred meaning, polysemy and derivation to use known signifier to represent the signified. In Russian, пeтyx(cock) represents зaдopныйч eлoвeк(aggressive); oceл(donkey) represents yпopный чeлoвeк(stubborn person).In terms of using root words to derive new words, such as читaть (read)—читaтeль (reader), читaтeльницa (female reader), читaльня(reading room), чтeниe (reading), читкa (lines), пpoчитaть (read through) and вчитaтьcя (read carefully).

102

4 The Hierarchy of Linguistic Signs

References Benveniste, E. (1962). Les niveaux de l’ analyse linguistique. Reprints of papers for the ninth internationl congress of linguists (pp. 491–498). Cambridge. Gleason, H. A. (1956). An introduction to descriptive linguistics (Vol. 66, p. 175,299,319). New York. Hai, C. (1980). 《辞海》 ( ) (1979 edition). Shanghai Lexicographical Publishing House (p. 1246). Mackey, W. F. (1976). Language teaching analysis (pp. 38–39). Longman. Martinet, A. (1949). Ladoublearticulationlinguistique (Vol. 5). TravauxduCercleLinguistiquede Copenhague. Slyusareva, N. A. (1969). About some problems of hierarchical organization of language from her book Units of different levels of language grammatical structure and their interaction (p. 219). Moscow.

Chapter 5

Meaning of Linguistic Signs

The primary function of linguistic signs is to express and convey meaning, and ultimately to communicate. Hence, it is essential to study the issue of meaning so as to reveal the semiotic, systematic, hierarchical, social, ethnic and other characteristics of language. And any attempt to discern the nature of language and linguistic phenomena by casting a veil over the issue of meaning itself will turn out futile.

5.1

Different Views Toward the Meaning of Linguistic Signs

No consensus has ever been reached concerning the definition of “meaning.” Geoffrey Leech, a British linguist, pointed out, “The word ‘meaning’ and its corresponding verb ‘to mean’ are among the most eminently discussable terms in the English language” (Leech 1996, 1). Furthermore, 22 definitions for “meaning” are listed in The Meaning of Meaning co-published by semanticists Charles Ogden and IvorRichards. (He 2000, 8) Meanwhile, as linguistic signs are closely linked to human cognitive activities, the issue of meaning has long been attracting the attention of quite some contiguous disciplines such as philosophy, logic, psychology, literary and art studies, science of culture and informatics. According to different theoretical basis and research purposes of these disciplines, the meaning of language has been studied with their respective descriptive methods from different perspectives. After summarizing the different discussions about meaning and studying the different schemes of defining meaning, we can categorize the different views toward meaning into three approaches—methodological, ontological and epistemological.

© Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_5

103

104

5 Meaning of Linguistic Signs

5.1.1

The Methodological Approach to Meaning

5.1.1.1

Hypothesis-Deduction Method

The hypothesis-deduction method is mainly used in the field of philosophy. This theory of meaning presents the hypothesis about the essence of meaning and verifies its explanatory power. Philosophers always attempt to understand the deep essence of language, so their research methods usually feature the pursuing of profundity. Related to this, the solution to the questions of meaning roughly belongs to “reductionism,” which means upgrading meaning to certain concrete or abstract ontological existence. (1) Referential theory Proposed in an earlier time, the referential theory, also called the naming theory, is old and easy to be understood and accepted by the general public. This theory argues that the meaning of one sign is the object it refers to or names, and the meaning of the word is closely related with the object it refers to. The referential theory provides a natural and visible explanation for meaning. For example, the meaning of the “Yellow River” is the real river in China; the meaning of “peony” is the real flower which usually grows in Luoyang, a city in central China’s Henan Province. The referential theory of meaning comes from The Dialogues of Plato, “sentences are made of words, and words are the names of things, and people refer to the objective things through sentences and words.” As a British logician who held the referential theory, John Mill said, “There are as many actual classes (either of real or imaginary things) as there are general names.” Bertrand Russell also asserted, “Words all have meaning, in the simple sense that they are symbols which stand for something other than themselves.” Ludwig Wittgenstein argued more directly in the early time, “The name means the object. The object is itsmeaning.” (quoted from He 2000, 9–10) The referential theory is easy to be accepted intuitively by people, but it cannot fully convince people. Firstly, the connection between most of the signs and things is not simple and direct, which also need concepts as the medium. Secondly, not all signs are related to the objects they refer to. For example, it is difficult to explain the meanings of conjunctions and interrogatives by the referential theory because they do not have fixed referents. Moreover, some signs can refer to the same object, but they do not have the same meaning. The most typical example is the “morning star” and the “evening star,” both of which refer to “Venus,” but their meanings are different. (2) Conceptual theory The conceptual theory, also called idealism, is a kind of classical theory of meaning which claims that the meaning of each sign is the concept existing in people’s mind and expressed by the sign, or the idea which the sign represents or arouses. For

5.1 Different Views Toward the Meaning of Linguistic Signs

105

example, the meaning of the sign “dog” refers to the concept of dog in people’s mind, and the meaning of the sign “ugliness” is the concept of ugliness that people think of. Generally, the conceptual theory was firstly put forward by John Locke. He wrote in his book An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, “The use then of words, is to be sensible marks of ideas; and the ideas they stand for, are their proper and immediate signification.” (quoted from Weixian 1989, 157) Edmund Husserl, David Hume and other linguists including Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya, Lev Vladimir Scherba and Alexander Ivanovich Smirnitsky from Russia are all representatives of the conceptual theory. They may take meaning as a way of presenting the content of signs, or equate meaning as a “plain concept.” The main problem of the conceptual theory lies in regarding concept as a kind of personal subjective idea and neglecting the objective origin and basis produced by the meaning of signs. So it is difficult to explain its meaning when the concept the speaker expresses differs from the concept associated in the mind of the listener. (3) Reaction theory The reaction theory is also called behavior theory, the theory of causation or stimulus–response theory. This theory claims that the meaning of one sentence (a group of signs or maybe one single sign) is to give rise to the stimulation produced by the sentence and make a response. For example, the meaning of the imperative sentence “Please leave here” is to bring about the stimulation (sound, tone and gesture) and the response generated by this sentence that the listener left that place. The formation of the reaction theory relates closely to the behavioral response theory advocated highly by Leonard Bloomfield, a representative of structuralism. The problem of the behavioral response theory is that the meaning of sign is simplified and just regarded as a kind of physiological phenomenon. The theory cannot explain the phenomenon that one sign or sentence may generate totally different responses. (4) Usage theory The usage theory, also called application theory, claims that the meaning of one semiotic expression is the sign holder’s ways of using signs. The usage theory was put forward by Wittgenstein and supported by Wilfrid Sellas, John Austin and others linguists, and later became a major idea of the so-called ordinary language philosophy school. This view holds that the meaning of one word is not the object it names or refers to, but the role it plays in language. “When a person knows how to use a word, he knows the meaning of the word.” (quoted from Weixian 1989, 161) The usage theory overly emphasizes the rules of usage, often generalizes and weakens the substantive meaning of signs. We know that all signs, especially linguistic signs, are used by humans, so it may seem to be limited for defining meaning only on the basis of the usage theory.

106

5 Meaning of Linguistic Signs

(5) Relations theory The relations theory, also called the theory of sign relations, asserts that the meaning of signs is determined by the relations between signs and their related factors. The relations theory mainly comes from the theory of sign relations about meaning put forward by the semioticians Charles Peirce and Charles Morris. For example, Morris held that there are three kinds of sign relations—relations between signs and signs, between signs and the objective world and between signs and their users, and the meaning of signs is embodied in these relations. Later, many linguists accepted the relations theory; for example, the former Soviet linguist Alexey Novikov distinguished meaning into three types: structural meaning, conceptual meaning and pragmatic meaning according to the relations theory.

5.1.1.2

Analytic-Induction Method

The analytic induction is a common method in the field of linguistics. This theory focuses more on the specific use and performance of language and usually sums up the issues of meaning with the methods of classification and enumeration. Unlike philosophers, linguists do not often probe into the problem of “what is meaning,” but focus on revealing what has been found about meaning. That is, linguists should mainly clarify some problems, such as what are the attributes of meaning, when can a word sign refers to an object and how does meaning change. A Russian scholar Aвoян highly generalized about this method, “the linguists’ interests in meaning don’t lie in the meaning itself, but in its relationship with the language structure. (Aвoян 1985, 59)” Jerrold Katz also argued, “Semanticists should learn from physicists and establish the theoretical framework and systematize facts based on the facts of the semantic structure of the natural language. On the basis of studying the semantic facts, the semantic theory is put forward, and then the problem of ‘what is semantics?’ can be answered”. (quoted from Liejiong 1990, 101) In the exploration of meaning, many linguistic scholars have conducted fruitful research. And the analytic-induction method they adopt to classify meaning has turned out to be especially valuable. (1) Leach’s classification of meaning British semanticist Geoffrey Leech listed seven different meanings in his well-known book Semantics. • Conceptual meaning, also called the dictionary meaning, is the basic meaning of words expressed in daily communication. This kind of meaning, fixed in dictionaries, reflects or generalizes the special properties of objects. • Connotative meaning. In Leech’s view, the connotative meaning, attached to the conceptual meaning, is actually a kind of additional meaning and implied

5.1 Different Views Toward the Meaning of Linguistic Signs

•

•

•

•

107

meaning which refer to the meaning attached by certain community, class, social group or even individual to certain words. For example, the word “fox,” besides its basic conceptual meaning described in the dictionary, often has the meaning of cunning. Stylistic meaning. It refers to the meaning of the social environment of discourse. For example, the style of document writing, the style of political writing, the style of scientific writing, the style of literary writing and other general writing styles are different. The most typical instance is that writers consciously develop their own special writing styles to make their works to have unique stylistic meanings. Affective meaning. Used to show the speaker’s feeling or attitude, this kind of meaning is often clearly expressed by the concepts or connotations of words. The affective meaning can be expressed in a direct way such as “You are a shameful fallen one; I hate you very much!” It can also be expressed in a euphemistic way. When we want to make people quiet, we can say, “I’m terribly sorry to interrupt, but I wonder if you would be so kind as to lower your voice a little.” Associative meaning. It is caused by mental association which is aroused by signs. As an essential feature of human thinking and a basis of human memory and creative thinking, mental association is the relations between things and phenomena reflected in the human consciousness and memory system. From the perspective of language, the association is the relation of language units produced by formal or logical semantic principles. As the second-level sign system, the associative meaning is actually the new signified caused by mental association and triggered by the signifier of the second level sign system which is acted together by the signifier (sound or writing sign) and the signified (conceptual meaning) of the first-level sign system. The associative meaning can be reflected at different levels of language (vocabulary, sentence, paragraph and chapter), and its reflection is also various. For example, the associative meaning in the lexical level can be divided into phonetic association, word association and semantic association and so on. The following are examples of the association. In the past, the Chinese boatmen used to avoid saying “翻” (fan, which means “turn over” in English), so some homonyms of the Chinese character “翻”, like “帆”, “番” and “繁” were also listed as taboo because of their associative meaning of “翻”; In Russian literary works, the plants pябинa (rowan) and чepeмyxa (prunus padus) are beautiful and rich in taste, like the love of young people, which has the associative meaning of love. The special purpose and environment of xлeв—shelters of animals create an associative meaning of dirty place. Collocative meaning. It is produced by the different collocations of signs. For example, the meaning of “交换” (jiiaohuan, exchange) and the meaning of “交 流” (jiaoliu, communicate) are similar in Chinese, but the two signs have different collocative meanings: “交换” often matches with more specific words, such as “gift,” “opinion,” “material,” “product,” while “交流” often goes with more abstract words, such as “thought,” “experience,” “culture” and “substance.”

108

5 Meaning of Linguistic Signs

• Thematic meaning. It is expressed by different ways of organizing information, such as adjusting the word order or the stress and tone of sound. For example, the active sentence and its passive form describe the same fact but have different meanings. Compare the following two sentences: “The guerrillas attacked and occupied the enemy’s stronghold” and “The enemy’s stronghold was attacked and occupied by the guerrillas,” and we can find that these two sentences describe the same fact but have different thematic meanings: The former sentence talks about “what did the guerrillas attack and occupy,” while the latter tells “who attacked and occupied the enemy’s stronghold,” (2) Yang Xichang’s classification of meaning After studying the various meanings of linguistic signs, Yang Xichang, a linguist in China, concluded that the typical carrier of meaning in language units is sentence. “The meaning structure of sentences is a complex and organic construction and a large unit made up of smaller units.” (Yang 2000, 36) The expression about the meanings of sentences can be grammatical, such as the structure, the word order, the intonation and the function word. The expression can also be non-grammatical, such as the glossememe, the context and so on. According to these expressions, the meanings of sentences can be divided into 13 types (ibid, 36–78): • Predicative meaning. It is not the specific cognitive-reflective content of sentences, but the generalization and promotion of the meaning and the function of sentences. In other words, the predicative meaning exists in all sentences and is the grammatical meaning expressed by a full set of methods. The semantic meaning of sentences is a multi-level structure, so the intercommunity of the predicative meaning makes it to have the cross-level feature. As a semantic category, the predicative meaning is actually the comprehensive reflection about the property of syntax, logic and pragmatics, and the expressions of this meaning usually are: the mode and structure type of sentences, tense, person and form of verbs (manifested as realistic/unrealistic objective modality) as well as semantic segmentation. • Model meaning. As a grammatical unit, every sentence must conform to certain abstract structural models (that is, the syntactic template with specialized form and language meaning). For example, in Russian Grammar published by the Soviet Academy of Sciences in 1980, 31 structural models of simple declarative sentences, 4 structural models of simple interrogative sentences and 30 structural models of idioms were summarized. The structural model of sentences has its own linguistic meaning—model meaning, which is collectively formed by three elements that construct the sentence model, that is, the grammatical meaning of the model, the interrelations among the model elements and the interaction of word rules. In addition to including the predicative meaning, the model meaning contains two core categories of the subject acting as predicative properties and the object of things involved in acting predicative properties. For example, in Russian, the two sentences Beтep дyeт (Wind blows) and Coлнцe cвeтит (The sun shines) belong to the model N1-Vf, and their common model

5.1 Different Views Toward the Meaning of Linguistic Signs

109

meaning is “the relation between the subject and its predicative property (action or the state of the process).” • Structural meaning. The meaning of the structural model of a sentence transfers to a sentence constructed by the model, so the sentence has a more sensible and definite meaning—structural meaning with words (and sometimes including extended parts) that occupy the main component positions in the sentence. This kind of meaning is formed by the interaction between the meaning of the structural model of a sentence and the lexical meaning of the words in this sentence. From the perspective of reflection and denotation, the structural meaning is more specific than the model meaning. The following two sentences Maльчик читaeт (The boy reads books) and Myзыкa вocxищaeт (The music is amazing) have the same model meaning but have different structural meanings. The former sentence shows “the relation between the subject and its specific action,” while the latter indicates “the relation between the subject and the feeling or attitude of someone the subject causes.” • Propositional meaning. It is reflected by the part of the sentence that does not contain the intention of communication. Compare the following five sentences: ① Will John leave the room? ② John will leave the room. ③ John, leave the room. ④ Would that John left the room? ⑤ If John will leave the room, I will leave also. These five sentences reflect five different communicative intentions in different occasions: question, prediction, request or order, wish and assumption, but they have the same propositional meaning; that is, all the five sentences mention the person John and tell about the basic content of John’s leaving the room. From this point of view, the propositional meaning is the potential concept of the sentences, the essential, objective and purely rational content of the sentences and the general model of the relation between the predicate and the variable elements not restricted by time and space. The propositional meaning constitutes the deep structure of the scene, having the feature of reflecting the essence and keeping the constant stability. • Referential meaning. It refers to the relationship between sentences and the actual situation or the alternative relationship for the objects (generic or specific). The referential meaning is often conveyed through a hierarchical structure. In the process of the first-level realization, the referential meaning embodies the core of meaning and refers to the components of meaning that are objective, nominal, cognitive, representative and factual. This part of meaning is abstracted from the rhetorical, pragmatic, modal, emotional, subjective and communicative feelings. For example, the generic reference of the sentence “Dogs can bite” is abstract and objective and is the first-level referential meaning. In the process of the second-level realization, the referential meaning refers to the object in the physical world that the speaker means when uttering some words, reflecting the correlation between the language units and the specific things or situations and the existence of the secondary nature about things or situations. For example, the second-level referential meaning of the sentence “Dogs can bite” must be a reflection of the fact that “one particular dog once bit a particular person.”

110

5 Meaning of Linguistic Signs

• Presupposed meaning. It refers to the speaker’s understanding of the natural relations among things and the knowledge level of the listeners. The presupposed meaning does not belong to the basic information conveyed by sentences, so it generally does not serve as the main content of a report. The presupposition usually has two basic divisions: semantic presupposition and pragmatic presupposition. As a narrow one, semantic presupposition only includes the conventional meaning and is independent from the context, referring to some true judgment that the listeners agree to. Only under this situation can the sentences be understood by the listeners. For example, the semantic presupposition of this sentence “The man standing next to the window is my acquaintance” is that a person stands next to the window and there is only one person. The semantic presupposition of this sentence “Ivan lives on the second floor” is that there is a person named Ivan. The pragmatic presupposition is a judgment that the listeners should know, and without such presupposition, the discourse is abnormal. The pragmatic presupposition generally reflects the pragmatic relations influenced by the context and has already been known by both sides in advance or at least can be inferred based on the context after listening to the utterance. The pragmatic presupposition usually cannot be found from the literal words or sentences, but from their meanings. For example, in the semantic meaning of the sentence “The General awarded medals to the soldiers,” there are the following pragmatic presuppositions: The soldiers made a heroic act; the contribution of heroes usually needs to be rewarded; the award is granted by a senior figure in the army and the rank of the General is higher than the soldiers and so on. • Connotative meaning. The connotative meaning and the presupposed meaning are similar, both referring to the tacit agreement of the semantic meaning between the speakers and the listeners and belonging to the inferential content of sentences. The difference between the two kinds of meanings is that the presupposed meaning is expressed by the non-assertive part of the discourse and does not belong to the basic information expressed by the sentences, while the connotative meaning is expressed by the assertive part of the discourse and belongs to the basic information of the sentences. For example, from the sentence “All roads lead to Rome,” we can deduce that there are roads leading to Rome; from the sentence “Ivan succeeded in stopping the car,” we can infer that Ivan intended to stop the car. These inferential contents, respectively, constitute the connotative meanings of the two sentences. • Assertive meaning. The assertive meaning also belongs to the inferential content of sentences, but has different communicative nature from the presupposed and connotative meanings. It is a corresponding expressive meaning expressed by the declarative sentences in the syntactic level and its corresponding semantic proposition. In the process of communication, the assertive content is usually regarded as the unknown information for the person you talk with. As the communication further goes, the assertive content becomes the shared information for both sides, and then, the assertive content may be treated as the presupposed in another sentence. In other words, the assertive meaning constantly turns into the presupposed meaning (presupposition 1 + assertion

5.1 Different Views Toward the Meaning of Linguistic Signs

111

1 ! presupposition 2 + assertion 2 ! presupposition 3 + assertion 3 ! presupposition n + assertion n). For example, the following sentences: “Little Sasha is sitting at the table”; “Sasha is painting a cat, a dog and a horse”; “She paints with strength.” “She sticks out her tongue and breathes heavily because of painting with strength.” (Fuxiang 1984, 75) From the information, such as Sasha, paint, with strength in these sentences, we can find that the assertive meaning of the former sentence turns into the presupposed meaning of the latter sentence and becomes the speech context of the latter sentence. • Associative meaning. It refers to “the conventional or random emotional evaluation and rhetorical color of language units.” (See Encyclopedia of Linguistics 1990, кoннoтaция “Connotation”.) The associative meaning of sentences includes the sociocultural associative meaning and the rhetorical associative meaning. The sociocultural associative meaning of sentences refers to the social and cultural perception of people from a certain society group or certain nationality about the unit. For example, the two sentences describing the behavior “request”: “Please obey the order” and “Please accept the order.” The former sentence indicates that the speaker has a lower social status than the listener, while the latter shows that the status of the speaker is higher than that of the listener. This kind of associative meaning is formed by social perception. For another example, the literal meaning of the Russian sentence Meждy ними чёpнaя кoшкa пpoбeжaлa is “a black cat ran between them.” However, in the Russian culture, a black cat symbolizes “inharmonious” or “inauspicious,” and this specific cultural environment develops the associative meaning of the sentence, that is, “there is a disagreement between them.” The rhetorical associative meaning, also called the rhetorical feature, can reveal the internal reason of sentences having the same cognitive meaning but different speech context and mainly refers to the expressive force of the communicative units and the rhetorical features of language. The representation of the expressive force is various, such as the ultrasound means, the vocabulary and idiom means, the morphologic and phonemic means, the means of word formation and the means of syntax as well as a variety of enhanced components. For example, the two sentences “His body is light” and “He should keep running and get out of here” both have certain expressive force through repetition, and the sentence “I’m grateful to you” has certain expressive force by adding the enhanced component. The rhetorical features of language are mainly embodied through the types of writing like the political remark, scientific report, official document and literature. For example, in the writing of a scientific report, more technical terms, abstract words, nouns showing features and sentences without actors make the report present a serious, exact and plain rhetorical associative meaning. • Subjective modal meaning. By using a variety of language means, the speaker can evaluate the content or the manner of a conversation and emphasize one aspect of it to indicate the environment, the information source and the credibility of what is talked about and so on. These kinds of meaning are collectively called the subjective modal meaning. For example, the two sentences “I heard

112

5 Meaning of Linguistic Signs

that the meeting would be canceled?” and “Aren’t we fellow travelers?” respectively show the source of information and evaluation for the credibility of the event. • Propositional attitude. The propositional attitude, also called the tendency of tenor, refers to the declarative, interrogative and imperative contents added to the propositional meaning in the discourse, reflecting a range of communicative intentions (such as commitment, assertion, question, request, desire, explanation, promise, command, opposition, guess, refutation, demand, forecast, guarantee, call, criticism, summary, hypothesis, generalization, answer and so on). The propositional attitude can often be analyzed from different aspects to form a certain corresponding relation. For example, in the category of grammar, the propositional attitude is embodied in the declarative sentences, the interrogative sentences and the imperative sentences; in the category of semantics, it is embodied in proposition, question and order, and in the category of pragmatics, it is embodied in sound, question and instruction. The propositional attitude can be expressed in a variety of ways. In the Russian, in addition to other means like the interrogative pronouns, the modal words and the imperative form of verbs, the propositional attitude can also be expressed by the most typical means—intonation. For example, a declarative sentence can reflect different propositional attitudes through five different intonations: the “statement without other accompanying meanings” through the unmarked ИK-1, the “statement + protest or refutation” by ИK-2; the “statement + modality (possibility, importance)” by ИK-3; the “statement + reservations” by ИK-4; the “statement + assertion” by ИK-5 and so on. • Conversational implicature. It mainly refers to the implicit meaning indirectly expressed by the sentences in the context of communication. It is the new proposition and reference produced by the translocation of the original explicit propositional meaning and the inferential meaning. In short, the conversational implicature means the implicit meaning indirectly expressed by people speaking some words or writing some sentences. The conversational implicature is generally divided into two kinds: normative and non-normative. The normative implicature mainly refers to the underlying meaning expressed in the forms of idioms, proverbs and so on. For instance, the literal meaning of the sentence Лoпни глaзa is “Just take my eyes,” but the conversational implicature of this sentence in the utterance is “swearing what is said is totally true.” • Focal meaning. The focal meaning can hold the most amount of information and decide the functional foreground of sentences, (which can also be called the communicative foreground, communicative directivity, communicative segmentation, logical meaning part and the structure of information carrying) of sentences. From the perspective of communication, every component of the sentences carries information, but the amount of information each component contained is different. One or several components in a sentence act as the key information holder which is called the “pragmatic peak,” the “communication center,” the “semantic core,” the “emphasized semantic component” and the “focus.” Essentially, these

5.1 Different Views Toward the Meaning of Linguistic Signs

113

concepts are related to the functions of the discourse. The focal meaning is embodied by the key information of the sentences which the speaker mostly wants the listener to pay attention to. As a multi-level functional and semantic category, the focal meaning of sentences is not only an existing component of the abstract units in the language system, but also a realized component of sentences in a specific context. When the realized focal meaning is consistent with the sentences out of the specific context, the sentences have no special expressive force; when the two are inconsistent, the sentences have a non-neutral rhetorical expressive force: The focal meaning of the sentences shifts and the original focal meaning (in the language system) turns into the presupposed content of the sentences, and the original presupposed meaning becomes the focal meaning. The features of the focal meaning can be summarized from three aspects of semantics, syntax and pragmatics. ① The semantic feature: the focal meaning is processed and operated on the basis of the propositional meaning, and any component of sentences, even the smallest semantic element, can be served as the focal meaning of the sentences. ② The syntax feature: the focal meaning cannot be omitted; there is usually a pause before the component of the sentences expressing the focal meaning; in written language, the components carrying the focal meaning usually appears at the end of the sentences, locating after the components containing the presupposed meaning and corresponding to the presupposed meaning of the sentences. In spoken language, the focal meaning carries the logical stress of the sentences. ③ The pragmatic feature: the focal meaning is often an uncertain component; the information carrying the focal meaning is generally unknown for the listener, but will be stressed by the speaker. In general, the focal meaning generally does not serve as a topic.

5.1.2

The Ontological Approach to Meaning

When giving the definition of meaning from the perspective of ontology, an ideal framework and certain logical thinking modes are not followed, but the construction of signs and the relations among their meaning elements are used to interpret meaning to finally reveal the nature of the signs’ meaning.

5.1.2.1

The Dyadic Model

It is generally believed that words in a language are about names and signs of things; that is, a word is the name of a “thing.” However, for Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, whose research denies such a simple view, what a word represents is not the thing itself, but the concept behind the thing: “The linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound-image” (Saussure 1985, 101). This can be illustrated in Fig. 5.1.

114

5 Meaning of Linguistic Signs

Fig. 5.1 Dyadic model

concept sound-image

Therefore, the linguistic sign could be counted as a psychological entity whose two facets are closely connected and inseparable just as Saussure put it, “Language can also be compared to a sheet of paper: thought is the front and the sound the back; one cannot cut the front without cutting the back at the same time” (Saussure 1985, 158). And to further illuminate the relation between the two facets, he proposed the two terms, “significant” (signifier) and “signifié” (signified) to denote sound-image and concept, respectively, while the term “sign” is still used to refer to the unity of the two, namely sign = the signifier + the signified. Here, Saussure considered a sign as the combination of the signifier and the signified, and meaning is produced by the relations within the system of signs. That is to say, the meaning of a word is not a physical entity; rather, it is a relation structure which consists of two inseparable elements (sound-image and concept), and it is in such a relation structure that the meaning of a word is born.

5.1.2.2

The Triadic Model

According to American semiotician Charles S. Peirce, a sign could be defined as “something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity” (Peirce 1931). In other words, he regarded a sign as something that represents or signifies something else, which can be understood or interpreted by someone or means something to someone. Obviously, unlike Saussure, Peirce saw a sign as a complex of three components. That is to say, a sign is composed of three related elements—medium (M), object (O) and interpretant (I)—representing, respectively, form, reference and explanation, which together determine the meaning of a sign and compose a “trinity”—the essential characteristic of a sign. Here is the formula for the “trinity”: S (sign) = R (relation) (M, O, I), which can also be shown in Fig. 5.2.

Fig. 5.2 Triadic model

I

M

O

5.1 Different Views Toward the Meaning of Linguistic Signs

5.1.2.3

115

The Semiotic Triangle

The theory was proposed by British linguists Charles K. Ogden and Ivor A. Richards. It was named as the Theory of “Semiotic Triangle” because its major claims can be presented by a triangle (cf. Fig. 5.3).

Concept (thought) Symbolizes

Refers to

Symbol (word )

Referent (thing) Stands for

Fig. 5.3 Semiotic triangle

This three-dimensional semantic diagram describes the relations between word, meaning and thing in a linguistic sign system. In a word, we first conceptualize a thing and then express it in words. That is to say, words are used to express concepts, while concepts are reflections of things in the human mind. In Fig. 5.3, the concept and the referent are connected by a solid line—an indication of a direct relation between the two, and this is also true to the relation between the concept and the sign, whereas the dotted line between the sign and the referent shows a non-direct and non-necessary relation between the two, or in other words, the relation between them is “arbitrary” and “conventional.”

5.1.2.4

The Semantic Trapezoid and the Semantic Quadrangle

The theory of “Semiotic Triangle” exerted profound influence on semantics, and especially on linguistic semantics. Today, it is still widely quoted by many scholars in their studies on meaning. However, as linguistics develops, researchers have found that the theory had some flaws—what the apex of the triangle refers to is not clear: It may refer to concept, meaning or significance, resulting in confusion between concept and meaning (Novikov 1982: 91). Then, in the 1960s and the 1970s, German scholar Klaus Hegel and Russian scholar Gennady Prokopyevich Melnikov, respectively, established the theory of “Semantic Trapezoid” and the theory of “Semantic Quadrangle” (cf. Figs. 5.4 and 5.5). The two theories are more or less the same, and both add a fourth angle—the angle of meaning based on the theory of “Semiotic Triangle.” From thing to sign, they can be interpreted as implying: The thing is the basis of conceptualization ! meaning reveals the nature of the concept ! the sign is the carrier of meaning, while from sign to thing: the sign expresses meaning ! an important

116

5 Meaning of Linguistic Signs

Fig. 5.4 Semantic trapezoid

meaning

sign

concept

thing (Semantic Trapezoid)

Fig. 5.5 Semantic quadrangle

meaning

thing

concept

sign

(Semantic Quadrangle) feature of meaning is generalization, and it must be associated with the concept ! the concept represents the thing. The Semantic Trapezoid and the Semantic Quadrangle, both being far less influential than the Semiotic Triangle though, are definitely valuable in that they incorporate “meaning” as a component element into the theory of meaning.

5.1.3

The Epistemological Approach to Meaning

Epistemology pays attention to the development of human understanding, and especially materialist epistemology, as a scientific epistemology, insists on the line of understanding from material to consciousness. It holds that the material world is the objective existence outside of human consciousness. Human understanding is just the image and reflection of the material world and the world can be known. As far as meaning is concerned, epistemology emphasizes deducting, claiming that the definition of meaning must be obtained from human understanding.

5.1.3.1

The Truth Value Theory

The concept of “truth value” comes from the formal logic and refers to the description and derivation of the concept of the truth value by using a kind of method approximating the mathematical formula. The truth value theory studies meaning mainly through sentences, and its basic view can be explained as: knowing the meaning of a sentence is equal to knowing the condition that the sentence is true. In other words, to understand the meaning of a sentence is to know the

5.1 Different Views Toward the Meaning of Linguistic Signs

117

condition under which the sentence is true. For example, “The snow is white” is true, if and only if the snow is white. In the underlined part, “The snow is white” is marked with quotes, indicating it is a sentence expressed by the meta-language; the snow is white without a quotation mark indicates that it is a fact expressed by the object language. The whole sentence shows that only on the condition that “the snow is white,” the sentence “The snow is white” is true. It can be concluded that the truth value of a sentence depends on what the world is like and meaning is the truth value.

5.1.3.2

The Theory of Identity

The theory of identity actually derives from the referential theory, also called the naming theory. In the theory of identity, meaning is regarded as a kind of fixed simple naming or tagging relations between the signifier and the signified. The meaning of the sign “Pacific” refers to that real ocean and the meaning of the sign “Washington” refers to the capital city of the USA. This theory applies not only to signs such as proper nouns and specific nouns, but also to signs that mean abstract things, the nature and state of things and the relations among these things. For example, the meaning of the adjective “bright” refers to that kind of things that have the nature of brightness.

5.1.3.3

The Speech Act Theory

The study of speech acts began in the 1950s. There are two main reasons that make people interested in speech acts: Firstly, the development of linguistics makes people realize that the unit of language communication is not sentence, but a concrete discourse, so it is necessary to study speech as an act; secondly, most researches on the meaning of sentences focus on declarative sentences because only the declarative sentences have truth value and people usually can do nothing about non-declarative sentences. So, it is necessary to fully consider the meaning of sentences. As one main representative of the speech act theory, the British philosopher John Austin asserted that “to say something is to do something” and considered speech act as meaning. In other words, a certain speech, through certain rules or conventional procedures, completes a certain speech act. The appearance of the concept of speech act makes people realize that it is far from enough to only analyze the structure, logic and meaning of sentences and to just make clear the meaning of sentences for truly understanding the discourse because the discourse itself is a kind of act, and speech act includes the locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act. Meaning can be explained only through speech acts.

118

5.1.3.4

5 Meaning of Linguistic Signs

The Information Theory

As a discipline of exploring the nature of information and studying the measurement, transmission, transformation and memory of information by using mathematical methods, the information theory has created a famous model to describe the communication process, having an important enlightening effect on understanding the meaning of language (Fig. 5.6). According to this flowchart, we can conclude that information is generated when things are moving. There are mainly two reasons of its generation: One is that the existing things change, and the other is that different things become similar, and both of them collectively constitute the main body of the information source. Information is produced and sent by the information source, then turns into the form of sign by encoding and modulating and passes through the information channel. Lastly, information is transformed back through demodulating and decoding and reaches the information destination. Meaning belongs to the category of information. Two links are very important for meaning. One is the information processing section involving the encoding and decoding parts. Both encoding and decoding depend on objective knowledge, but the subject of encoding is people and the intervention of the subjective factors cannot be avoided, which bring some uncertainty for the generation and understanding of meaning; the other is Fig. 5.6 Communication process

Information source

Encoding

Modulating

Channel

Demodulating

Decoding

Destination

5.1 Different Views Toward the Meaning of Linguistic Signs

119

information transmission, including three parts—information source, channel and destination. These three parts are different from each other in capacity and ways of expressing the information. As the information source, the physical world provides infinite information, and as the channel of information, signs being a medium are limited. Transferring infinite information with limited signs will inevitably cause ambiguity and uncertainty of the meaning of signs. But the uncertainty of meaning forms the value of information, making it necessary to communicate. As the destination of information, humans need to remove the interference of “noise” in their brains and eliminate the ambiguity of meaning by using effective means, making unambiguous meaning gradually become relatively certain and maximizing the positive feedback in the communication system.

5.2

The Hierarchical Approach to the Meaning of Linguistic Signs

Clearly, the above-mentioned theories address the issue of meaning from different perspectives and make significant attempts to tackle the problem of “meaning.” But it should also be pointed out that due to different research purposes, theoretical foundations and observations, the conclusions these theories draw do not exactly apply to the issue of meaning understood in terms of linguistic semiotics. Generally speaking, they have three weaknesses: First, they are mostly based on reductionism and attempt to classify meaning into the category of reference, truth value, signification, representation, response, relation, behavior, environment, usage, action, etc. And all these attempts try to take meaning which is elusive as other things that are relatively non-elusive. Actually, meaning cannot be equated with these things, which otherwise would lead to skepticism and misconception that meaning does not exist at all. Second, the distinction between concept and meaning is not defined clearly enough. Most of the theories touch upon concept, but they all seem to confuse meaning with concept. We claim that meaning and concept, like language and thought, though being integrated, is not actually the same thing. Concept basically falls into the category of logic, while, meaning, and word meaning in particular, is constrained not only by logic but by some linguistic conditions. Hence, concept should not be excluded from the study of meaning, and meaning is indispensable for the interpretation of a concept. Third, as language is a complicated system of signs, any one-time description of the signifier or the signified seems to be too simple and superficial, and thus may fail to draw comprehensive and correct conclusions. We observe that most theories of meaning ignore such a fact that a sign tends to present meaning through multiple layers, and no meaning cluster at any layer is an enclosed system; rather, the different layers keep interacting, with each upper layer serving as the semiotic context of the lower one, so that vagueness is dispelled from between the different layers and relative specificity, and definiteness of meaning shows up.

120

5 Meaning of Linguistic Signs

In light of all these weaknesses, we attempt to propose a new theory with which to elaborate the nature of meaning of linguistic signs, that is, a hierarchical theory, which is expected to provide a more comprehensive and objective interpretation for the meaning of linguistic signs.

5.2.1

Graphical Representation of the “Hierarchical Approach”

See Fig. 5.7.

III.

surface

II. shallow

layer

I. deep

layer

sign of parole

layer

layer

sign of langue

sign of

sign

object

phonetic phonetic

shell

sign

word

reflected

composition

Phonetic

thing

complex generic

signifier

thing

+ signified

actual thing

referentation

denotation

signification

concept

contextual

cognitive

perceptual

meaning

meaning

meaning

meaning

concrete

abstract

associative

name

name

name

Fig. 5.7 Hierarchical approach

name

5.2 The Hierarchical Approach to the Meaning of Linguistic Signs

5.2.2

121

Interpretation of the “Hierarchical Approach”

It has been universally acknowledged in the linguistics community since Saussure that linguistic sign is divided into sign of langue and sign of parole. In fact, there is also sign of object—a primary linguistic sign and a sound-image not yet shaped, which is primarily related to the generality of a thing of the external world. Hence, linguistic sign should comprise sign of object, sign of langue and sign of parole, which find themselves, respectively, in the deep layer, the shallow layer and the surface layer.

5.2.2.1

Language is a Hierarchical System of Signs

The sign in each layer is composed of the signifier and the signified, and the composite of the two serves as the signifier of the above layer to enter the composition of new signs. As this process repeats, a hierarchical system of signs comes into being. In the above-mentioned three-layer system, the signifier of a sign in each layer is defined by the adjective “phonetic,” because a sign, when functioning in language, depends primarily on phonetic sound while other media should be taken as substitutes of the phonetic sound. In the deep layer where the sign of object lies, a purely materialistic phonetic shell associates people with a thing in the objective world, which we call a “reflected thing.” The association between the phonetic shell and the reflected thing attributes itself to people’s knowledge of the objective world especially that acquired through language acquisition. When one pronounces a sound or a group of sounds as phonetic shell, his brain, a pool of knowledge, will start instructing him to select certain “parts” characterized as “reflected things” for “assembling.” Though knowledge discrepancy between individuals may result in different capability of knowledge storage, which may then lead to a different selection of “parts” in quantity and quality (including precision), people’s knowledge of the “reflected thing” is roughly the same due to the influence of the social collective consciousness enforced during language acquisition. For example, when hearing the word “lion,” what immediately comes to mind is a string of associations—an animal, a beast, strong limbs, brown hair, a long tail, a predator and so on. Not comprehensive and accurate enough, and far from scientific, these features do associate the sound of the word “lion” with the “lion” in the real world—the sign of object is thus produced. Sign of langue is located in the shallow layer of the system. Its signifier, a complex, could be defined as a phonetic word and is composed of the signifier and the signified of the sign of object. The phonetic word, though appearing mainly as form of the shallow layer, is no longer a carrier of “pure” form as a result of the combination of sound and meaning of the sign of object in the deep layer; rather, it functions as a signifier with certain associative connotations. A phonetic word is

122

5 Meaning of Linguistic Signs

used primarily for naming, and is, so to speak, a sign of the named thing. However, it should be pointed out that the thing at this point is not a particular thing in the real world, but a generic thing conceptualized and abstracted from the real world. The result that a linguistic sign is produced brings about the scientific meaning or the purely conventional meaning of a sign, as is the case of the dictionary meaning of a word. That is to say, in the layer of langue, what comes after the mention of the word “lion” should not be a simple accumulation of the “fragmented” knowledge that derives from the associations in people’s mind, but a representation of human wisdom featuring scientific conventionality, as is defined in Cihai (a Chinese dictionary of etymology): “Lion (Panthera leo), the name of an animal, is a mammal of the cat family. The male lion is strong with a three-meter-long body, a big head and a broad face, and it has the mane on its head and neck; the female lion is relatively small without mane on its head and neck. Most lions have brown or dark brown fur and a cluster of hair at the end of the tail. They inhabit sandy lands where forests are scarce. Lions are active primarily at night. They are predators to hoofed animals like antelopes, zebras and giraffes. Lions are found in Africa and West Asia.” (Cihai 1980, 821) In the surface layer of the system is sign of parole. Its signifier, just like that of langue, is also a complex (a combination of the signifier and the signified of sign of langue with certain conventional connotations). It could be called a phonetic complex, which is used primarily to refer to an utterance, a thing in the utterance or a thing in the real world. At this point, the abstract, generic concept plays a potential role as deposited knowledge only, whereas human knowledge focuses on identifying an individual thing. For example, “lion” as a sign of parole must refer to the lion mentioned in the utterance, or the lion that shows up on TV or in the zoo, that is, a particular thing in a particular context. In addition, the phonetic complex, affected by contextual factors, may go beyond the denotation of a thing under certain conditions and be used as a sign of other specific things (at this point, the sign is likely to enter a new stereotyped system). For example, “lion” can refer to a “violent and valiant man,” “cock,” in oral Chinese, an “aggressive man,” and “dog,” a “henchman who serves powerful bad guys.”

5.2.2.2

Representation of the Four Elements of Sign

The development of the theories of semiotic meaning reveals that four elements are essential to the interpretation of meaning of linguistic signs—sign, thing, concept and meaning. These four elements are also represented in the hierarchical theory of meaning of linguistic signs we propose in this essay. (1) Representation of sign In the layer of the sign of object, the phonetic symbol, assumed by the phonetic shell, starts to establish a relation with the objective world, making the signified initially materialized and becoming an carrier for object-meaning association; in the

5.2 The Hierarchical Approach to the Meaning of Linguistic Signs

123

layer of the sign of langue, the phonetic symbol, assumed by phonetic words, establishes fixed links with the objective world, making the signified abstract and the meaning the sign carries conventionalized; in the layer of the sign of parole, the phonetic symbol, represented by the phonetic complex, establishes a real connection with the objective world, making the signified concrete and the meaning the sign carries pragmitized. (2) Representation of thing In the layer of the sign of object, the signified is a reflected thing, a thing reflected by the phonetic shell. As the formation of a reflected thing is of some uncertainty (due to the enforced social collective consciousness and the knowledge discrepancy between individuals), the name the sign gives to a thing is still a vague one, which is at the pre-naming stage and therefore can be defined roughly as an associative name. In the layer of the sign of langue, the signified of the sign is a generic thing, a thing signified by the phonetic words. And as the signified thing at this point is generic rather than specific, the name the sign gives to a thing in this layer is an abstract one. In the layer of the sign of parole, the signified of the sign is an actual thing, a thing signified by the phonetic complex in an utterance. And as the signified thing at this point is a specific one, the sign is actually connected with the objective world in this layer, and the name the sign gives to a thing is a concrete one. (3) Representation of concept “Concept is a way of thinking that reflects the properties of an object (properties characteristic of a certain category of objects only)” (China Small EncyclopediaPhilosophy 1994, 205). That is to say, concept as a way of thinking to reflect an object, targets directly at the object’s properties, which indicates the nature of an object or the relation between objects. Thus, the claims that “concept is the signified,” “concept is an object,” or “concept is meaning” are all wrong. In the hierarchical theory of meaning we propose, concept is, respectively, represented by three abstract terms—signification, denotation and referentation. In the layer of the sign of object, concept is a signification, which corresponds to “signification” in semantics; in the layer of the sign of langue, concept is a denotation, which corresponds to “denotation” in semantics; in the layer of the sign of parole, concept is a referentation, which corresponds to “referentation” in semantics. (4) Representation of meaning Meaning is the most important one of the four elements of a sign, which constitutes the core of the theory of meaning. In the layer of the sign of object, meaning refers to perceptual meaning, that is, “certain social collective’s perceptions and understandings of things” imprinted and stored in the human brain through acquisition. Its value lies in its connection with certain phonetic shell, ready to be withdrawn any time from the brain through association. Despite the fact that during the “withdrawal” process the accuracy and quantity of meaning features may vary from person to person, perceptual meaning

124

5 Meaning of Linguistic Signs

plays its role as potentially invariable meaning in the semiotization as a result of the “social collective” force. In the layer of the sign of langue, meaning refers to cognitive meaning, the most basic meaning conveyed in verbal communication, which usually finds itself in a dictionary that defines it as “well-established” “contractual meaning” and “purely conventional meaning.” It abstracts and generalizes things and phenomena in the objective world rather than directly correlating with them. For example, in the sentence, “I like dogs,” the meaning of “dog” is abstracted and generalized from numerous things of the same kind—“dogs”; it refers to “dog” as a kind of animal instead of any particular dog. Since cognitive meaning is the meaning defined in dictionaries, the perceptions and understandings of which may not vary from person to person, it usually plays its role in the semiotization as explicitly invariable meaning. In the layer of the sign of parole, meaning refers to contextual meaning. Instead of the abstract relations between a sign and a thing, it indicates the relations between a sign and a thing revealed in an utterance in a particular context. In other words, it reflects a relation that reveals itself in a situational context, where the signified of a sign must be a thing or a phenomenon that exists in the objective world. For example, in the sentence, “I like my dog,” “dog” refers not to “a type of dogs” or “any one dog,” but to “a specific dog (the dog I have in my home).” It should be pointed out that constrained by various factors of uncertainty in communication, contextual meaning usually plays its role in the semiotization as explicitly variable meaning. The most typical manifestation is delivering the thoughts and feelings of the addresser toward a thing as part of the information to be delivered in social communication, bringing forth the commonly recognized “connotative meaning.” Semanticist Leech cited the word “woman” as an example to elaborate connotative meaning: He held that the conventional meaning of “woman” features HUMAN + ADULT + FEMALE; but in a specific context, the word, based on its references, may have other communicative values, that is, the connotative meaning, which can be represented by various characteristics of women —for instance, gregarious and maternal (psychological and social characteristics), good at talking and cooking (typical but not essential characteristics), and delicate, tearful, timid, emotional, capricious, graceful, sympathetic, sensitive, diligent, etc. (universally recognized characteristics).

5.2.2.3

About Denotation and Referentation

In the theories of meaning, denotation and referentation are often confused. Hence, it is necessary to make further distinctions. Firstly, not every sign has both denotation and referentation. For example, words like god, devil, water nymph, dragon and centaur all represent something fictional that does not exist in the real world. So, these signs have, as it were, denotation instead of referentation; if these fictional things are deliberately associated with a “fictional world,” then the signs that represent these things can be taken as having, at best, “fictional referentation.”

5.2 The Hierarchical Approach to the Meaning of Linguistic Signs

125

Secondly, denotation emphasizes the structure and state of a thing or a fact, while referentation emphasizes a thing or a fact itself, which leads to two possibilities (as are seen especially in a sentence): One is that the denotations of the signs are the same, while their referentations are different. Take the two sentences, “The dog is running” and “The dog is not running,” for example: The denotations are the same—both revealing the subject and the action, whereas the referentations are just the opposite—the former sentence implies “the subject is acting” while the latter, “the subject is not acting.” Another possibility is that the referentations of the signs are the same, while their denotations are different. For example, the referentation of “morning star” and that of “evening star” are the same—both referring to the star Venus, but their denotations are different—Venus that appears at dawn is dubbed “the morning star” while that at dusk “the evening star.” Thirdly, in terms of a sentence, denotation can also be understood as the structure of thoughts explicitly expressed, and referentation, as a specific object (a specific situation, event or an abstract thought) that the sentence describes and refers to. A sentence, upon having a denotation, has a meaning and is thus a qualified unit of communication; as for whether the message delivered by this unit of communication corresponds to the real world or not, it has nothing to do with the referentation of the sentence. Look at these three example sentences: “Orphans have fathers”; “This orphan has no father”; “The colorless green thoughts sleep desperately.” The three sentences all have denotations as they all embrace structures of thoughts explicitly expressed (They can be perceived, and be defined as semantically abnormal). In terms of referentation, however, none of the three sentences conform to reality: The first is semantically contradictory (The connection between the denotation and the referentation is a fallacy as the referentation of the sentence does not exist in reality); the second is semantically redundant (The connection between the denotation and the referentation is superfluous since a thing in reality is not necessarily expressed in such a tautological way); the third is semantically abnormal (The denotation and the referentation of the sentence are not organically connected for a thing in reality keeps itself away from such a combination).

Chapter 6

Reference of Linguistic Signs

One of the three tasks of semiotics is to interpret the relations between signs and the objective world. Similarly, linguistic semiotics, as an interdiscipline of semiotics, sees the study of the relations between linguistic signs and objects as a main research subject. In Chap. 5, we have given an in-depth analysis of the meaning of linguistic signs and, in fact, it has touched upon the reference of linguistic signs. However, since reference and meaning are not the same thing, it is really necessary to undertake further studies and strive for comprehensive recognition of the relations between linguistic signs and objects.

6.1 6.1.1

Meaning and Reference The Opposition of Two Views

Two opposite views stand out in the long-running debate about the relations between meaning and reference and reflect different understandings and perspectives of the concept of reference. The first view emphasizes the consistency between reference and meaning and tends to consider reference as meaning. Derived from The Dialogues of Plato, the view mainly holds that as names of things, words are people’s reflections on objective things. For example, John Mill, a British scholar of the nineteenth century, believed that each name is a proper name of a real object or an imaginative thing. “Theory of descriptions” or “Theory of Definite Descriptions” put forward by Bertrand Russell is a paradigm example demonstrating the consistency of reference and meaning. Russell claimed that names can get their meanings only through their referents or realities in the world. Ludwig Wittgenstein, an extremist of the twentieth century, advocated that a name means an object, and the object is its meaning. © Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_6

127

128

6 Reference of Linguistic Signs

The other view stresses differences between reference and meaning, which opposes to seek the relations between names and objects and suggests studying reference and meaning, respectively. In the thirteenth century, philosopher Peter Ispansky noticed the duality of linguistic expression and non-linguistic reality. It means that he, at that time, distinguished reference and meaning in the structure of a word. Nevertheless, it is generally acknowledged that Gottlob Frege was the first person who put forward the differences between reference (Bedentang) and meaning (Sinn). He believed what associates with a sign is not only its referent but also its implication or meaning. Willard Quine also considered that the meaning of a word is not the referent. When studying the reason of the equivalent alternative theory, he found that in some contexts what was important was not only the demonstrativeness, but also the meaning (the way of the demonstrativeness). Also, Charles Morris agreed with the view. He propounded the “designatan” and the “denotatun” based on Frege’s point of view and illustrated a more accurate distinction between meaning and reference. In the history of ancient Chinese thought, such two opposite views also existed. For instance, Gongsun Long (320–250 BC) gave a definition of “name” in his book On Name and Nature: “Name is the denotation or reference of nature,” while in Xuncius
Rectification of Names, it was claimed that “name is enough to refer to nature” and “name is produced to refer to nature.” Following Gongsunand Xuncius, Pang Pu (1928–2015), a famous scholar in modern China, directly interpreted reference with meaning, equating meaning with reference. Meanwhile of course, there are still many other scholars who disagreed to equate the two concepts. For them, meaning does not have a one-to-one correspondence with its referent. And obviously, which is opposite to the theory of reference.

6.1.2

Historical Evolution

Whereas two opposite views exist at home and abroad, each of them is based on the fact that, from the perspective of its development history, the relations between meaning and reference have undergone a process from basic unification to gradual separation. Two opposite views just manifest the respective recognition of the two different stages. Gou Zhixiao in his Meaning and Signs explained the development process of the relations between meaning and reference. His analysis, we find, is objective and beneficial for the understanding on meaning and reference. Gou argued that the human world of meaning begins with action thinking. Action thinking is a kind of situational thinking which must include a real referent. From the perspective of action thinking, the process of meaning and the process of reference are exactly the same. Actually, in Chinese, “指”(“zhi”) means “what you see” and “where your fingers point to”—an indication of the similarity between meaning and reference. Even though after the emergence of hieroglyphs, the meaning of a referent is still directly defined by its features. In this case, meaning

6.1 Meaning and Reference

129

and reference are almost the same. However, when the characters were not hieroglyphic anymore and hieroglyphs were gradually replaced, especially after the emergence of alphabetic writing, characters became codes of sound and less related to their referent. Sound can convey meaning with or without a referent. Under this circumstance, meaning and reference are relatively independent—they can either “go together” or “go their own way.” Many linguists’ claims evidence this point. Saussure first pointed out that a linguistic sign is not a link between thing and name. “The linguistic sign is then a two-sided psychological entity,” and made up of the signifier and the signified. “The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary,” “for there is the rudiment of a natural bond between the signifier and the signified.” In other words, “the linguistic sign is arbitrary,” and there is no natural reason why the signifier is linked to the signified. So, “wholly arbitrary signs are better than the others to realize the ideal of the semiological process.” (Saussure 1996: 101–103) Robert Palmer in his An Introduction to Modern Linguistics pointed out that for the complicated purposes of human communication we need something more elastic and less cumbrous. We cannot always carry round with us samples of all the physical objects to which may have occasion to refer, to say nothing of abstract concepts like love, honor and obedience. We are, however, almost in a position to create sounds for them with our vocal organs. The utilization of this possibility to form symbols is a key to distinguish human from the lower animals. The immense advantages of our system are obvious. In language, the symbol is dematerialized: It dispenses with any resemblance to, or imitation of the thing represented. The connection between them is of quite a different kind. We say that it is arbitrary to allocate certain mental contents to certain sound groups, and we will examine this peculiar relationship which is the connexion between word and “thing” (Palmer 1983: 7). Therefore, the development of human language used to be a unification between the process of meaning and the process of reference; however, they have separated with each other as time flies. And their separation has enriched human knowledge but has also led to some false ideological systems at the same time, which often makes linguistic signs “have their meaning but without a referent.”

6.1.3

Relations Between Meaning and Reference

6.1.3.1

Paradoxes Between Meaning and Reference

The relations between meaning and reference are complex. In some certain conditions, they have a corresponding relation and are relatively symmetrical, while in most situations, they are not symmetrical, but paradoxical. Firstly, paradoxes between reference and meaning are represented by the fact that a linguistic sign is meaningful but does not have an objective referent. Theoretically speaking, “an expression, a sentence or a text, as long as following

130

6 Reference of Linguistic Signs

the regulation of a word formation process of language or grammar, has a certain meaning.” (Wang 1994: 112) But its reference may be a null set. In another word, it is meaningful but does not have an objective relevant. Even if it has a referent, the referent may be an “imaginary referent.” Some words, such as “mermaid,” “unicorn,” “phoenix” and so on, do have meanings, but do not have referents in reality. They are born based on people’s imagination and exist in an imaginary world. In other words, meaning here is only an “imaginary existence.” Such phenomenon is more common in mathematics. Mathematician Morris Kline said, “But gradually and unwittingly mathematicians began to introduce concepts that had little or no direct physical meaning. Of these, negative and complex numbers were the most troublesome. It was because these two types of numbers had no ‘reality’ in nature that they were still suspect at the beginning of the nineteenth century, even though freely utilized by then… But then the introduction of quaternion’s, non-Euclidean geometry, complex elements in geometry, n-dimensional geometry, bizarre functions, and transfinite forced the recognition of the artificiality of mathematics.”1 Obviously, the references in mathematical expressions just have the function of intentionality; however, such intentionality may not be realized in the outside world. Secondly, paradoxes between reference and meaning are represented by the fact that linguistic signs of the same meaning have different referents. “The same name, due to its different meanings, may refer to different existence.” It is easy to understand. For example, пepo in Russian means “quill” or “nib” (the referent of “quill” and the one of “nib” have a certain relation; however, in fact, they are two different things). However, in a particular speech, we often come across the fact that “the same name with a certain meaning, due to different contexts, may refer to different existence.” Personal pronouns such as “you” “I” “he” are typical examples. These words have a certain meaning; however, because of different contexts, their referents may be different. Thirdly, paradoxes between reference and meaning are also represented by the fact that linguistic signs which have the same referents may have different meanings. For instance, in Chinese, we say “an ancient capital witnesses nine dynasties” and “the city of peony”; “the leading figure of the New Culture Movement” and “the author of Diary of a Madman.” Each group of the examples has the same referent. The former one stands for “Luoyang (a city located in Central China’s Henan Province)” and the latter, Lu Xun (1881–1936, a great writer and thinker in China). However, as reflecting different features of same objects, signs convey different information. Thus, meaning is different instead of what we think is the same. We can find out that, in the examples above, the description of names defines referents via their attributes. However, different attributes of a referent may become different meanings of the description of names. In other words, because the way we reflect a referent is multiple, linguistic signs of different meanings may have the same referents.

Quoted from Western Philosophy of Mathematics (《西方数学哲学》): 206–207.

1

6.1 Meaning and Reference

131

Lastly, it is controversial and deserved to be paid attention to that “a sign has no meaning but can be a referent of something.” According to He Yingyu, proper nouns fall into this category. He said, “A proper noun is only used to refer to an object; it has no conceptual meaning; it does not reflect the features of its referent. It is only an alternative sign rather than a descriptive sign.” (He 2000: 14)

6.1.3.2

Causes of the Paradoxes

The paradoxes between meaning and reference are objective. What causes these paradoxes? Reasons are as follows: (1) Actual object and intentional object are different. Gou argued that, considering its property, object can be divided into actual object and intentional object. (Gou 1991: 71) When the object is an actual object, its meaning and reference are consistent. Even though the meaning of an actual object may be changed with changes of its reference, each meaning and the process of its reference are always consistent. However, when the object is an intentional object (that is, people often create some virtual representations based on their thinking, and these can be thought as referents), its meaning and reference are separated. Under this condition, signs have meaning but no referents. As a result, meaning and referent are sometimes consistent and sometimes separated. (2) The development of human knowledge breaks the old order. Human beings are always discovering new features and new rules of objects, which will break the old order of naming a thing in the world and bring about redefinition and classification. In other words, the discovery of new features and rules will be reflected from the meaning of a sign and give a new “sear” that leads to an abundant meaning not coordinated with the original reference. (3) Linguistic signs need to breakthrough themselves. Generally speaking, the process of reference is a process that signs break through their limits to represent things outside themselves. Though the referential relation between language and object is relatively stable as long as it is established, people will rename the object when the changes outside the object exceed a certain limit. As a result, two cases will appear: On the one hand, the relation between the referent’s original name and meaning remains stable; on the other, signs must break through their limits with a new form to adapt to the changing world. Eventually, an object will have different names, and each name has its meaning under different circumstances.

132

6.1.3.3

6 Reference of Linguistic Signs

Mutual Restrictions Between Meaning and Reference

From the analysis above, we can see that meaning is sometimes consistent with the referent. In this condition, if there is no referent, meaning will be useless. However, meaning sometimes doesn’t refer to an object, but an object according to the logic of the sign. So both connection and difference exist between meaning and reference. Here, we will analyze, when meaning and reference have a normal corresponding relation, their mutual restrictions during the human-based cognitive process. On the one hand, the referential relation of signs restrains the connotation of meaning. Since there is no doubt that “existence determines consciousness,” we can conclude that, according to time sequences, referent exists earlier than meaning. Linguistic signs are used to refer to objects outside referents, and their meanings are acquired during people’s cognitive process of accumulating their cognition of objects outside referents. As we known, as long as decided to refer to or stand for something, a sign becomes a stable entity which cannot change easily and randomly. Even if the world changes, people prefer to add new features and contents to meaning rather than change the referential relations between the original name and its object. That is to say, though new features of objects may “spring up” thanks to scientists’ efforts and discoveries and give new meanings to their names, all these changes are not beyond the limitation of its referential relations. Take “gene” and “atom” as an example: Gene means “a unit inside a cell which controls a particular quality in a living thing that has been passed on from its parents” and was found out by Austrian geneticist Gregor Mendel; atom stands for “the smallest part of a chemical element that can take part in a chemical reaction” and was put forward as a doctrine in the nineteenth century by John Dalton who ever studied and summarized many changes according to lots of important chemical regulations. As time goes by and with the development of modern science, scientists have gradually found some new features of gene and atom. If we consider these new features as standards, Mendel’s “gene” and Dalton’s “atom” will not cover their original meanings. In fact, people keep the useful parts of the original meanings and add new meanings to Mendel’s “gene” and Dalton’s “atom” based on their new cognition. Thus, it can be seen that a new meaning is to reflect objective features instead of denying the referential relations between “name” and “object.” The relations not only supply a conceptual framework for scientific theories with historical continuity but also provide possibilities of scientific development. In short, the objective reference stipulates requirements that signs may be filled with connotative meanings. On the other hand, meaning influences and restrains the range of referential relations. When discussing the relations between meaning and reference of sentences, Frege thought that references of each component part of a sentence determine the true value of the sentence. So we can see that meanings of each component part of a sentence determine the true-value condition of the sentence. That is to say, meanings of each component part of a sentence decide the condition of referents in the sentence (See Selected Works on Linguistic Philosophy: 3–4 edited by Tu Jiliang). Another example is the word “bull.” The object “bull” that is different from

6.1 Meaning and Reference

133

others in the real world gives itself tags as “mammal, big body, toe hoofed, long horn on head, long hair at the end of tail, ruminant animal, strong and so on.” For language users, meaning exists earlier than referent. The reason why we choose “bull” as an example of referring to the object in reality is only that we have some cognition to the referent “bull” of which we know all tags above before. That is to say, meaning presupposes referent and determines referent. Analysis shows that meaning, in fact, determines the true condition of referent. Only if an object satisfies the meaning of a linguistic sign, that is, the conditions of a referent, can the sign truly refer to the object. In other words, meaning determines the possibility and the conditions of a referent. Of course, the ideal situation is that name and referent have one-to-one correspondence and meaning is certain. In this case, we can confirm the referent as long as we understand the meaning. Similarly, once knowing a referent, we can make sure about its meaning. Unfortunately, it is just a hypothesis. We usually cannot find all references to a certain meaning. Thus, a linguistic sign has dual functions: One is to delineate a scope which helps people to determine a referent based on a certain meaning; the other is to make the sign have a possibility of openly referring to the outside world. The reason why a linguistic sign has the dual functions is that a sign abstracts the referent of language to a certain extent and ignores the differences between individual referents, enabling language to control the objects it refers to from a certain side. In addition, from an objective view, we can draw some regularity about the mutual restrictions between reference and meaning. From a static point of view, the more abstract and generalized the meaning of a linguistic sign is, the wider range of its reference it will cover; and the less abstract and the richer of its connotation, the narrower range of its reference it will cover and the smaller number of objects it refers to. From a dynamic point of view, the change of referential range will cause the change of meaning, but the change of meaning will not cause the change of referential range. This is because the change of meaning is limited by referent. So we can say, we determine reference according to certain meaning, and from some range of reference, we are also able to generalize meaning of a linguistic sign (Wang 1994: 111).

6.1.3.4

Establishment of the Relations Between Meaning and Reference

From above, we can conclude: (1) meaning and reference are different; (2) meaning and reference have different impacts in the process of cognitive activities and knowledge formation. The how are such relations established? We hold that the constitutive relations between meaning and reference are established through a triangle structure of “language—thought—world.” During the process of cognitive activities and knowledge formation, the referential relation is determined by many factors. British scholars Ivor Richards and Charles Ogden in TheMeaning of Meaning pointed out that “this may be simply illustrated by a diagram, in which the three factors (thought or reference, symbol

134 Fig. 6.1 The Ogden and Richards model

6 Reference of Linguistic Signs

Thought or reference

Symbol

Referent

and referent) involved whenever any statement is made, or understood, are placed at the corners of the triangle, the relations which hold between them being represented by the sides”2 (Fig. 6.1): Here symbol does not “mean” anything, and the user of symbol does not show the symbol and referent to accepters via referring. Sign realizes its function of reference via thoughts. In other words, thoughts connect operant activities with external objects. This is clearly illustrated by the diagram above: Between symbol and referent is an imaginary line, which means no other relevant relations than the indirect one. We are familiar with this “triangle diagram” since it is mentioned in Chap. 5. And to discuss “the relations between meaning and reference,” we should make further analysis on the diagram from the perspective of linguistic semiotics. We understand that the triangle is composed of three factors as a ternary framework. Here, symbol can be detailed as linguistic sign; thought stands for mental activity; referent is the objective world. Linguistic sign is restricted by thought and acts through thought. It can achieve its position and identity both in the subjective conceptual world and in reality to complete its function of reference. For linguistic philosophy and linguistic semiotics, it is important to establish the “language—thought—world” ternary framework which displays many scientific ideas and provides the following evidence for establishing the relations between meaning and reference. (1) Meaning, carried by language in social communication, can be defined as concept and information relate to objects and conveyed based on thoughts, which means the subject uses language as media to grasp the concept and information which congeal in the language in the process of perceiving and evaluating the object, including objective content, such as properties, characteristics and movement rules of the objective world, and value evaluation that the subject gives to the object. Just because the meaning of linguistic signs covers objective content and information of the outside world and human world, human knowledge can be established in the form of linguistic signs and idea exchanges between people can be realized. (2) Generally speaking, reference is the corresponding relations of media signs— language and its descriptive things—world including names (common nouns 2

Quoted from Che (1989).

6.1 Meaning and Reference

135

and proper nouns) (Wang 1994: 57–60). Firstly, reference is not simple binary relations between name and object, but complex relations involving many language subjects. In communication practice, referential relations also include lots of factors such as speaker, accepter and context. On the one hand, information on the nature, characteristics and functions of language subjects (including speaker and accepter) in practice is controlled by thought and compares itself with name of object to achieve intrinsic unification of name and nature; on the other, language subjects guide practice with the knowledge system including names of related objects, which promotes objectification and realization of ideas concerning object or external reflection of name or language and achieves external unification of name and object. What’s more, reference’s function of standing for objective things is not inherent; that is, the referential relations between sign and referent are not the internal relations decided by the nature of language, but are gradually established in people’s social practice and social intercourse. As Xuncius said, “the name of a thing is not originally appropriate but named by common agreement. If it is established by convention, the name is appropriate. Otherwise, it is inappropriate. The name does not mean something initially, and then people become accustomed to using this name to call this kind of thing gradually. Thus, it becomes the name of the thing.” In addition, after the establishment, people need time to understand and master it in social communication, even through historical documents and cultural heritage. So reference often contains some cultural connotation of history which provides evidence to interpret history and becomes an important point in linguistic semiotics and linguistic culturology. (3) Meaning and reference are the two basic aspects of linguistic semiotics. They connect with and restrict each other and take part in building human knowledge together. Meaning can be considered as a way for language to show the world, while reference can be seen as the world displayed by language; meaning is a description of the internal or intended aspect of language, while reference is a regulation of the external sides or expanded aspect of language; meaning as subject is to determine object, which means meaning congealing in language builds human knowledge, while reference as built by objective external things and language becomes a basic gist for subject to examine the objectivity of knowledge; when we build an organic connection between the world and cognitive subjects, meaning can be seen as the contribution that thought provides for language, while reference can be thought as the contribution that the world supplies for language; in the process of perceiving the world, meaning focuses on how cognitive subjects use language to achieve structuralization, systematization and abstraction of the non-language world, while reference engages in the “regression” of language, which concerns how a meaningful language unit is connected with the world and according to what the accepter is made to understand the entity and features; if treating language as a focal point, we can conclude that in the process of realizing meaning, language finds the way to thought, while in the process of achieving reference, language looks for the path to reality.

136

6.2

6 Reference of Linguistic Signs

Features and Hierarchical Types of Reference

6.2.1

The Referentiality of Words

The referential relations of linguistic signs are mainly embodied by part of speech. If we study the nature of it, part of speech is a kind of prototype category which comes from generalizing family similarities between words on the level of function and meaning. So we can think that on the level of referentiality, part of speech also has family similarity. As we all know, word can be classified as content word and function word. Content word usually expresses concept (except for proper noun and pronoun) and has its independent meaning that comes from objective things. It is the reflection of objective things, and its function is to refer to or describe objective things. Function word usually cannot refer to objects because it does not express a concept or reflect objective things. It is a tool to organize idea, form language and express feelings with people’s thoughts (Huang 1993: 60). Different parts of speech are different on referentiality. In the language system, noun and pronoun are typical examples. A noun has strong referentiality while a pronoun has weak one. The following is the analysis of the referentiality of words based on “noun” and “pronoun.”

6.2.1.1

The Referentiality of Nouns

Usually, nouns are divided into proper nouns and common nouns which are relatively different on the level of meaning. Most people think that as it does not contain the abstraction and generalization of general meaning, the meaning of proper noun has no relation with other concepts and does not have the meaning like common nouns. Specifically, the object that a proper noun stands for is an individual which cannot be defined. That is to say, a proper noun does not express any features of an object except for a proper name of the referent. As Greek philosopher Plato said, “These original factors (individual) cannot be defined but only be named. Due to the things made up of original factors are compound, they can be expressed via combinations of names. The combination of names is the essence of definition.”(Wang 1989: 94) However, a common noun is different, which expresses conceptual meaning abstracted from the essential attribute of a kind of object. The essential attribute is a special thing of this category and is shared by every part of this category. They form the core of a common noun, making the common noun, even an independent existence in the language system, convey information of a certain object to people directly. Influenced by semantic features, a proper noun has the following referentiality: (1) Directness. A proper noun does not rely on concept to confirm its reference, and the relation between a proper noun and its object is direct. In other words, a proper noun is “transparent”; that is, we can see the referent as soon as we know the proper

6.2 Features and Hierarchical Types of Reference

137

noun. (2) Stationarity. The referent of a proper noun is unique and stationary. As Otto Jespersen said, “every time a proper name is used in actual speech its value to both speaker and hearer is that of denoting one individual only, and being restricted to that one definite being” (Jespersen 1988: 69). Thus, the referential relations between a proper noun and its referent are a typical binary referential relation. The “stationarity” ensures the reference uniqueness and certainty of a proper noun in langue and parole. (3) Finiteness. On the one hand, the referent, unlike a common noun, is only an individual that can refer to both a category and a part of a category; on the other, objects that a proper noun covers are limited. Not all individuals have their proper names. It is generally acknowledged that the referent of a common noun is entity. He Yingyu divided it into three kinds of concrete entities: The first is discrete, tangible and 3D entity (concrete noun, e.g., кapaндaш/pencil, кoльцo/ring, yлицa/street, кoшкa/cat); the second is collective entity (collective noun, e.g., нaчaльcтвo/leader, cтyдeнчecтвo/undergraduate, кpecтьянcтвo/farmer, чeлoвeчecтвo/human); the last is abstract entity (abstract noun, e.g., бeлизнa/white, cepocть/gray, дoбpoтa/ kind-hearted, cпpaвeдливocть/justice) (He 2000: 36). The referetiality of a common noun is embodied in the following aspects: (1) indirectness. Though people tend to think that referential relation is the corresponding relation between a word and its referent in the world outside language; a common noun does not reflect things in the external world directly but establishes the relation with referent by concept abstraction. In Chap. 5, we have introduced Ogden and Richards’ “semiotic triangle theory.” In the diagram, between symbol and referent is an imaginary line which means the relation is indirect and unnecessary. In other words, the relation between symbol and referent explains the indirectness between a common noun and its referent. (2) Concreteness. As the meaning of a proper noun does not contain conceptual meaning, which means no features are presented to recognize objects, and lack fixed information on social consensus, people always regard a proper noun as an “empty word.” But a common noun has clear conceptual meaning and establishes “concreted” relations with the object in the world outside language, which can offer people information on a certain object directly even though the common noun exists independently in the language system. (3) Generalization. The concept that a common noun expresses is the essential attribute abstracted from the same category. That is to say, in the language system a common noun does not connect with specific things, but describes the range of potential things. So we can conclude that, for a common noun, all things that meet these essential attributes covered by its co notational meaning are referents of the common noun.

6.2.1.2

The Referentiality of Pronouns

Pronoun is a special sign in parts of speech. First of all, the meaning of pronoun is highly abstract and is not as abstract as other parts of speech. In the process of verbal communication, we often see if we transform an element of some parts of

138

6 Reference of Linguistic Signs

speech, such as noun, verb, adjective and adverb, to a factor of pronoun with meaning not being impacted. We can know from that pronoun is not an abstraction and generalization about essential attribute of a category, but about referent and the relation between speakers. We can say that the abstraction and generalization of a pronoun has exceeded the limit of category and represents the abstraction and generalization of the relations between all kinds of things in space and speakers— the “hub of the universe.” Natalia Yulievna Shvedova has a deep understanding of it, “from the level of abstraction, the system (pronoun system) is more abstract than any other parts of speech: their structure and mutual relations can be learned from the system.” (Shvedova 1998: 8) What’s more, the subjectivity of the meaning of a pronoun is another major semantic characteristic. Since ancient times, some scholars have been dividing vocabulary into two kinds— “qualitative words” and “demonstrative words.” The former has naming function and reflects the reality through specific characteristics of things; the latter owns demonstrative function and indicates objects through the ways of revealing phenomena and the relations between people’s cognition and speakers. Pronouns belong to “demonstrative words” that only demonstrate objects and do not give any characteristics to objects, which mirror the essential differences of objects from a subjective perspective. In other words, a pronoun does not express inherent features of an object and is not a conceptual sign to give an objective definition; the meaning of a pronoun involves “human factors.” The subject of speaker as an essential factor exists in the semantic structure of a pronoun, so the meaning of the pronoun is strongly subjective and self-centered. The referentiality of a pronoun is defined by its semantic meanings. He Yingyu holds that since a pronoun is highly abstract and subjective, it has the characteristics of context dependency, universality and variability on referentiality (He 2000: 43). (1) Context dependency. The subjectivity of a pronoun indicates that the speech-act participants are considered in the formation process of pronoun meaning. Considering this, speech-act participants are the “guide” for referent judging, so it is no doubt that the referentiality of a pronoun has strong context dependency and a pronoun “cannot represent the object if it gets rid of the real discourse.” (Jakobson 1972: 97) Alexander Matveevich Peshkovsky also pointed that pronoun is a special kind of vocabulary—its semantic type belonging to “grammatical” type whose meaning is related to context (Peshkovsky 1984: 26). Once separated from context and speech act, the benchmark will be uncertain and the object cannot be identified, either. The referent of a pronoun, so to speak, can be determined as the speech act occurs and disappears as it ends. Although a pronoun doesn’t have real and concrete meaning in a language, compared with other notional words, it has perfect meanings in specific contexts. (2) Universality. A pronoun does not limit any phenomenon in objective characteristics for its high level of abstraction in meaning. If there is no fixed reference center, on the one hand, a pronoun possesses a large potential reference scope, which may have different referents in different sentences; on the other, a

6.2 Features and Hierarchical Types of Reference

139

pronoun is so inclusive that it can refer to every point in space, every matter and even every person. (3) Variability. What pronouns represent is a kind of “meaning variable” that does not have constant content in general, so they are always considered as pure signs that have no real corresponding objects. For example, in communication, “I” and “you” are two most frequently used words. With the change of communicative context, time, speaker and listener, the guide system center of the conversation will also be changed. Thus, the extension of pronouns possesses some particularity; that is, every factor in it is changing, and its outstanding feature is that there are no referents that are fixed and beyond a specific conversation. In other words, pronouns cannot steadily represent certain objects or features, for they have no fixed referential relations.

6.2.2

The Hierarchy of Referential Relations

Language, a hierarchy sign system, has referential relations that may be different in hierarchy. According to different standards and the binary opposition method, referential relations are mainly divided into abstract referential relations and specific referential relations, metalinguistic referential relations and objective referential relations, as well as initial referential relations and acquisition referential relations (He 2000: 18).

6.2.2.1

Abstract Referential Relations and Specific Referential Relations

We have divided signs in linguistics into three types: material sign, signs of langue and sign of parole in Chap. 5. However, in referential relations, limited by sign forming, “the name the sign gives to a thing is still a vague one, which is at the pre-naming stage and therefore can be defined roughly as an associative name.”3 The real name appears when a linguistic sign forms. In the layer of the sign of langue, the signified of the sign is a generic thing, a thing signified by the phonetic words. And as the signified thing at this point is generic rather than specific, the name the sign gives to a thing in this layer is an abstract one. Things are different in the layer of the sign of parole: The signified of the sign is an actual thing, a thing signified by the phonetic complex in an utterance. And as the signified thing at this point is a specific one, the sign is actually connected with the objective world in this layer, and the name the sign gives to a thing is a concrete one. By this token, from the sign of langue to sign of parole, we have experienced two naming processes. Words are given certain meanings after they form 3

See Chap. 5 of this book.

140

6 Reference of Linguistic Signs

themselves. And people use these words to name certain things and phenomena in reality, which is the first time naming (пepвичнoe oзнaчeниe) composed of linguistic signs. As the referential relation formed this time is virtual (виpтyaльнoe), it does not directly relate to the object and only provides the range of potential references to the name. The relationship between signs and their objects are the reflection of the essential attribute of the same kind of things. Therefore, the referential relation of the first time naming is an abstract relation. A linguistic sign that has a certain meaning will finally be used in an actual verbal communication, and only then does it have an existent value. In the verbal communication activities, signs of langue become signs of parole, and the second time naming (втopичнoe oзнaчeниe) comes into force; that is, the word uses its “old” meaning gained in the first time naming to name the “new” things and phenomena. Different from the abstract referential relation, the second time naming forms another kind of referential relation which reflects the concrete object in the specific context and denotatums of words are individual objects or phenomena in reality. We can call this relation a specific referential relation. Essentially, signs in the abstract referential relation correspond to the objects that have a potential state, which is often hidden in language in the form of paradigm, and can be regarded as a static referential relation of signs in a language system. On the contrary, signs in a specific referential relation represent things in real life. And that relationship generally exists in language singly and can be seen as a dynamic referential relationship of signs. The relationship between abstract referential relation and specific referential relation is a dialectical unity, both of which are opposed to each other but also related to each other. The latter is the purpose of the former and the former is the basis of the latter.

6.2.2.2

Meta-Linguistic Referential Relations and Objective Referential Relations

Joseph Bochénski argued that “It is necessary to make a distinction between two languages. One is about object, and the other is about language,” in his book “Contemporary Thinking Method” (quoted from Liu 1996: 29). The former can be called object language that is used to discuss non-verbal language. For example, when we use Chinese to talk about English and Russian, they are treated as something to be learnt about, namely, they are object languages. Compared with that, meta-language is used to talk about language of object language. For example, Chinese mentioned above is a meta-language. For a series of English textbooks annotated with Russian as a carrier, Russian is a meta-language, and English is an object language. It should be noted that object language and meta-language can be the same language; for example, when we talk about Chinese in Chinese, then Chinese functions as both object language and meta-language. This hierarchical division in one language makes it reasonable and necessary to distinguish two referential relations: meta-linguistic referential relations and object referential relations. The former means referent of linguistic expression is language

6.2 Features and Hierarchical Types of Reference

141

expression itself, such as the meta-linguistic referent of “rose” is rose itself. The latter means referent of linguistic expression is non-verbal object different from itself; for example, object referent of the word “rose” is the thing of the objective world—rose. Meta-linguistic referential relations and object referential relations are often neglected or confused. In fact, they are very important to the study of language hierarchy, so we need to make further distinctions about their differences. (1) There is only one referent of meta-linguistic referential relations, namely, sign itself. The referent of object referential relations may be a single thing, a class, certain and uncertain parts of one class and so on. (2) Meta-linguistic referential relations are independent of the meaning of sign itself, while object referential relations are directly related to meaning. (3) All language expressions have a meta-linguistic referent, but not all language expressions have the corresponding objects of object referential relations (He 2000: 20).

6.2.2.3

Initial Referential Relations and Acquisition Referential Relations

Geoffrey Leech said in his Semantics, “We have already noted that acquiring the concept of ‘cat’ is two complementary processes: The first is the expansion process, which means we can expand the acquired name applicable for some referents (cat 1, cat 2, cat 3, etc.) to everything with some properties of referents (cat 4 … cat n). The second is distinguishing process, which restricts the referent of a word to the object with characteristics rather than other things. (i.e., the word ‘cat’ cannot be referred to dogs and tigers, etc.)” (Leech 1996: 40) Obviously, these two processes are carried out simultaneously when we understand the boundaries between categories. However, it should be pointed out that there are differences in the degree of cognition in terms of different cognitive subjects. For example, when children obtain the concept of the category, they often fail to master the two processes of “expanding” and “distinguishing” at the same time. They may call their own cats “cats,” but do not regard other people’s cats as “cats”; they think “men” are equivalent to all strangers with hats. In other words, the scope of referents of the two words “cat” and “men” does not meet the standard of social conventions, which violates the “process of expanding” and leads to semantic “incomplete generalization” or “insufficient expansion.” At the same time, children may also call all furred quadrupeds (such as dogs and tigers) “cats” and all men “dads,” which is contrary to the “process of distinguishing” and results in semantic “over-generalization” or “over-expansion.” Naturally, in the process of children’s future acquisition, the above semantic deviation phenomena will be gradually corrected until they meet the semantic standards stipulated by the society. However, judging from the process of cognitive development and language acquisition, we must admit that the range of referents of signs is not constant, but changing and constantly revised. Based on this understanding, it is necessary for us to distinguish between the initial referential relations and the acquisition referential relations.

142

6 Reference of Linguistic Signs

Shen Sanshan defined the above two relationships as follows: Initial referential relation, a simple psychological connection between linguistic signs and referents, is a relation acquired by pointing at something with fingers. Acquisition referential relation is the result of individual cognitive activities and language social conventions (Shen 1996: 16). Acquisition referential relation is relatively close to abstract referential relation discussed earlier. Its reference scope is recognized by the social language community, or it is imposed on the communicative subject by the social communicative purpose. This relation has its theoretical foundation and is abided by the communicators in practice, so people attach great importance to it. On the contrary, the fuzziness and uncertainty of initial referential relation make people often avoid talking about it or even deny its existence. We believe that initial referential relation is an objective existence, which is a certain “product” of a certain stage in the cognitive process. At the very least, it can bring the following two revelations to language cognition researchers: (1) The scope of referents is variable. Due to the differences in the communicative subject’s original knowledge state and cognitive structure at different stages, the reference range of signs used by individuals in speech is subjective to some extent. Therefore, compared with the reference range of signs in acquisition referential relations, initial referential relations have certain deviations and differences. However, in the process of communication and cognition, this subjective reference range will be constantly revised to minimize subjectivity until it matches the range of reference objects allowed by the communication community. (2) The establishment of referential relations must depend on cognition. Initial referential relation is a relation acquired by pointing at something with fingers. Its simple and extensive features determine the inaccuracy and imperfection of the relation. From another angle, it shows that the objective understanding of the reference scope of signs is not only acquired by pointing at something with fingers but is also gained over time through sufficient cognitive activities.

Reference Che, M. (1989). Western modern language philosophy (p. 39). Tianjin: Nankai University Press.

Chapter 7

Relations Between Linguistic Signs

Modern linguistics holds that language system means the study of linguistic signs and their mutual relations. In Course in General Linguistics, Ferdinandde Saussure clearly stated that “in a language of state, everything is based on relations” (Saussure 1980: 170). Of course, the relationship between linguistic signs is extremely complex and it is difficult to sum it up with one relation. However, we can still draw a general conclusion that among many relations of linguistic systems, the study of vertical and horizontal relations (namely paradigm and syntagm), which exists within all levels of units and between the internal units, constitutes the core of the theory on the relations between linguistic signs. Paradigm and syntagm are two concepts about two language axes, and they originate from Saussure’s theory of linguistics and are the most significant and widely accepted principles in Saussure’s structural linguistics. Saussure held that “Relations and differences between linguistic terms fall into two distinct groups, each of which generates a certain class of values. The opposition between the two classes gives a better understanding of the nature of each class. They correspond to two forms of our mental activity, both indispensable to the life of language.” “In discourse, on the one hand, words acquire relations based on the linear nature of language because they are chained together, which rules out the possibility of pronouncing two elements simultaneously. The elements are arranged in sequence on the chain of speaking. Combinations supported by linearity are syntagms.” “Outside the discourse, on the other hand, words acquire relations of a different kind. Those that have something in common are associated in the memory, resulting in groups marked by diverse relations and they are completely different from the former. They are not supported by linearity. Their seat is in the brain and they are a part of the inner storehouse that makes up the language of each speaker. They are associative relations” (Saussure 1980: 170–171).

© Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_7

143

144

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

“Syntagma” and “associative relations” proposed by Saussure have been gradually accepted by the academia of linguistics, but people prefer to call them “syntagm” and “paradigm,” respectively, because the latter naming seems to be more direct and more easily to be distinguished from psychology.

7.1 7.1.1

Syntagm Definition of Syntagm

Syntagm refers to the horizontal relations between each language unit. It occurs in the speech (discourse) and is built on the linear basis (namely, on the linear nature of language and arrays on the lines of speech), and it’s also called syntagma or horizontal relations. Let’s take the following sentence as an example to show how syntagm is represented at all levels. (1) B этoт дeнь мнe нeздopoвилocь нeмнoгo, и я нe cтaл дoжидaтьcя yжинa и лeг cпaть. (pceньeв)/Today I felt a little unwell and went to sleep before I had dinner. 7.1.1.1 The sentence is composed of two clauses and the latter clause is constituted of two smaller clauses which are combined by the parallel relations (Fig. 7.1). 7.1.1.2 Take Clause 1 as the analyzing object, we can find that it is composed of six words. 7.1.1.3 When analyzing the word of нeздopoвилocь (unwell) in Clause 1, we can find it is composed of six morphs, that is, нe-здopoв-и-л-o-cь (prefix + root + suffix + suffix + word ending + ending). 7.1.1.4 The word form of нeздopoвилocь is composed of 12 allophones (variant of phoneme).

Sentence Parallel relations

Clause 1

Smaller clause Fig. 7.1 Parallel relations

Clause 2 Parallel relations

Smaller clause

7.1 Syntagm

7.1.2

145

Features of Syntagm

7.1.2.1 Syntagm is a combination of two or more adjacent units in speech chains; in other words, it is always made up of two or more continuous units, which only can be found in two or more linear units. Since its combination is backed by length, there is no possibility of producing two elements simultaneously. 7.1.2.2 Syntagm is embodied in the level of concrete observation (ypoвeньнaблюдeния) and it is featured with continuous sequences and certain numbers in discourse, so segmentation is a proper way to analyse syntagm. 7.1.2.3 The basis of syntagm is the adjacent relations and sequence relations of elements in linear combination arrangements. On the one hand, it embodies the spatial properties such as “proximity” and “linearity”; on the other hand, it embodies the logical relationship from the perspective of structure, that is, the elements should be combined according to conjunctive relations (X^Y^Z), which is “…and…” in actual application. In other words, a linguistic unit linked by syntagm must be presented in a chain form in speech, and one linguistic unit must be premised on another one. Only when an element in the syntagm is opposite to the element before or after it, or to both the two elements can it obtain its value. 7.1.2.4 The types of syntagm are limited, and they mainly include well-known and easy-to-understand relations such as “syntax.” Therefore, syntagm can appear repeatedly in speech, even in a limited coherent discourse, which is called recursiveness (peкypcивнocть). There are repeated restrictive constructions in the following example sentences. (2) cтyдeнт, кoтopый cидит oкoлo cтyдeнтки, кoтopaя…/ (The student who sits near the girl studentwho…); (3) пpикaз кoмaндиpa эcкaдpoнa втopoгo Hикaлaeвcкoгo пoлкa Cypoвa… (Orders of Surov, commander of the Cavalry of Nikolaev second regiment); (4) yпoтpeблeниe фopмы poдитeльнoгo пaдeжa мнoжecтвeннoгo чиcлa oдyшeвлeнoгo cyщecтвитeльнoгo (The form of the genitive case of Animal Nouns). 7.1.2.5 The core of syntagm is subordination (hypotactic relation in a broad sense). It is the subordination that results in a new, high-level syntagm (for example, in the morphemic combinations: root + affix ! stem; stem + word ending ! word). The verb-object structure (play football, have meal), the verb-complement structure (jump high, beat hard) and the modifier-core structure (socialist China, bright classroom) in Chinese are all concrete embodiments of subordination. The same is true of such relations as consistency (coглacoвaниe—пpeкpacнaя жизнь/wonderful Life), dominance (yпpaвлeниe—yвлeкaтьcя cпopтoм/be fond of sports, пoбeдa нaд вpaгoм/defeat the enemy), attachment (пpимыкaниe—yпopнo бopoтьcя/fight hard, вoзвpaщeниe дoмoй/return home), etc., in Russian.

146

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

7.1.2.6 Syntagm is a kind of horizontal integration through which it can be recursive to form a higher level of linear units theoretically: allophone (aллoфoн) ! morph (мopф) ! word (cлoвoфopмa) ! sentence (выcкaзывaниe).

7.2

Paradigm

7.2.1

Definition of Paradigm

Paradigm refers to the vertical relation among the units which may appear in the same position (according to memory) and have the same function (have something in common) in the language system (outside discourse). Thus, paradigmatic relation is also called vertical relation or associative relation. The units in the following sentences show the paradigmatic relation. Он He

│ скоро quickly

Она

│ весело

She

delightedly

│ вернулся

│

домой.

came back │ пришела returned to

home. │

к себе.

her residence.

Девушка │ с волнением│ побежала │ The girl

excitedly

Солдаты │ с победой

ran into

the classroom.

│ возвратились│

The soldierstriumphantlyreturned to

7.2.2

в аудиторию. на Родину.

their country

Features of Paradigm

7.2.2.1 Paradigm exists among the linguistic units with the same function. It is a parallel, associative or even radial relation rather than a linear relation. The paradigmatic relation is a kind of association which regards the extent as a pillar; thus, it would not be affected by simultaneity or non-simultaneity. For example, when we discuss the concept of “motion verbs,” we can adopt an associative method to aggregate several word groups based on their same function.

7.2 Paradigm

147

(1) “Space for movements” (1) “Ground”: идти (walk), exaть (ride), пoлзти (climb), нecти (carrying something while walking), бpoдить (walk back and forth), вoйти (walk into); (2) “In the air”: лeтeть (fly), пopxaть (fly back and forth), пapить (glide), пpoлeтeть (fly over), гнaть (blow), вeять (wave); (3) “on the water”: плыть (swim), плaвaть (float), дpeйфoвaть (drift), oтплыть (be driven by current), кaтaтьcя (take a boat), гpecти (paddle towards) etc.; (2) “Tools for movements” (1) “Ways for Transportation”: exaть (travel), вeзти (transport), пepeexaть (drive across), мчaтьcя (rush); (2) “on foot”: идти (walk), нecти (carry on one’s back while walking), бeжaть (run), вecти (lead); (3) “Spreading the wings”: лeтeть (fly), пopxaть (flutter), пpoлeтeть (fly over), витьcя (hover) etc.; (3) “Directions of movements” (1) “Entering”: вoйти (enter into), влeтeть (fly into), вбeжaть (run into), внecти (bring in); (2) “Leaving”: oтoйти (leave), yexaть (set off), oтoгнaть (hurry to), yнecтиcь (rush); (3) “moving back and forth”: бpoдить (walk back and forth), пopxaть (fly back and forth), кaтaтьcя (roll), cлoнятьcя (wander) etc.; (4) “Intensity of movements” (1) “Fast”: бeжaть (run), нecтиcь (rush), мчaтьcя (drive); (2) “Slow”: бpoдить (stroll), пoлзти (crawl), плecтиcь (shamble) etc. 7.2.2.2 Paradigm is shown in the abstract aspect of association and its elements are connected before appearing. There is no strict restriction on the sequence and number in the paradigmatic relation. The activity, which can be used to analyze the paradigmatic relation, is classification. Take the semantic aggregation association of the word ливeнь (torrential rain) as an example:

148

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

ливень torrential rain

сильныйдождь (Heavy rain);

дождь rain -- атмосферныеосадки, выпадающиеизоблаковввидекапельводы (Atmospheric precipitation falls from the cloud in the form of water droplets.); осадки precipitation -- атмосфернаявлага, подающаяназемлюввидедождя, снега (Water in the atmosphere falls to the earth in the form of rain and snow.); влага moisture -- вода, содержащаясявчем-н (Water stored in a substance); вода water -- жидкость liquid ...

By analyzing the multi-level semantic components, it can be seen that a word can be aggregated with a large number of words in different degrees at different levels of semantic structure. Besides, at every level of semantic decomposition, ливeнь (torrential rain) can indirectly develop such paradigmatic relations. For instance, as a phenomenon of precipitation (ocaдки), it can not only constitute different paradigms by associating with cнeг (snow), инeй (frost), Гpoзa (rainstorm), meтeль (snowstorm) and other words, but also form paradigms of various semantic themes together with words related with ocaдки (precipitation), such asaтмocфepa (atmosphere), oблaкo (cloud), тyчa (dark cloud), пapы (moisture) and so forth. 7.2.3 The basis of paradigm is the “substitution relation” of elements in associative enumerations. On the one hand, it embodies the “substitute occupancy” in spatial displacement; on the other, it epitomizes some logic relations from the perspective of structure, that is, the elements should be aggregated according to the disjunction relation (X_Y_Z), which is “…or …” in actual application. In other words, the linguistic units linked by the paradigmatic relation cannot coexist in the same position of the discourse chain, which means they are mutually exclusive in the same place. 7.2.4 Paradigm is essentially a relation between similarities and differences (identity and opposition). The similarities and differences constitute the basis of association and the meanings of different linguistic units, respectively, which are the foundation for us to make choices according to the need of communication. To analyze the paradigmatic relation, we need to mine out the same functional units behind each linear unit, and find out their similarities and differences. 7.2.5 The core of paragim is category relation. Generally speaking, it can start from two aspects: form and content. Taking the form and meaning of lexical units as examples: измeнeниe (change), вoopyжeниe (arms) and oбyчeниe (teaching)— these three Russian words are paradigms in terms of form (They all use -eни-e as their suffixes, yet they have nothing in common semantically); in contrast, лeтчик

7.2 Paradigm

149

(pilot), читaтeль (reader) and бeгyн (runner) do not have the same morphological characteristics but they are all “agents,” so they are semantic paradigms. The other group of words, лeтчик (pilot), гpyзчик (loader) and paccкaзчик (narrator) not only have the same meaning of “agent,” but the same morphological sign (suffix—чик), so they constitute form-meaning paradigms. 7.2.6 While syntagm constitutes a higher level of units, paradigm aggregates different levels of language units to form various systems. Broadly speaking, the systems of paradigm refer to any relations that can form systems, such as synonymy (cинoнимия), antonymy (aнтoнимия), hyponymy (гипepoнимия), conversion (кoнвepcия), paranomy (пapoнимия) and hononymy (oмoнимия).

7.3

Opposition and Connection Between Syntagm and Paradigm

7.3.1 Syntagm appears in the speech chain and it is primary; and as it occurs on the scene, thus it is explicit and we can get an intuitive understanding of it: it is based on two or more elements that occur in an effective series. On the contrary, paradigm appears in the language system and it is secondary; it unites elements in absentia in a potential mnemonic series and its existence depends on psychological activities, so it is implicit. In light of this, the two relations can be regarded as opposition axes with mutual substantiality and different potentiality. To put it another way, syntagm and paradigm belong to the process dimension, the system or structure dimension, respectively. In this regard, Saussure made an easy-to-understand explanation of the two relations with a similar phenomenon in the building structure, i.e., a column, which highlights the substantiality and procedurality of the former and the potentiality and systematicity of the latter. “On the one hand, the column has a certain relation to the architrave that it supports; the arrangement of the two units in space suggests the syntagmatic relation. On the other hand, if the column is Dorie, it suggests a mental comparison of this style with others (Ionic, Corinthian, etc.) although none of these elements is present in space: the relation is paradigmatic” (Saussure 1980: 171). 7.3.2 Syntagm is embodied in various rules and patterns, and these patterns can be used as the basis for the inclusion of language units in the paradigmatic system. For instance (Table 7.1), In this table, the left column shows the patterns of various language levels, and any syntagmatic relation should be embodied or achieved by such patterns; and the abstract results of these patterns provide us with the basis for the paradigmatic relation, making “different categories” possible. In other words, while communicating, we combine language units into coherent discourses, at which point the syntagmatic relation provides a pattern and the paradigmatic relation offers an alternative approach.

150

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

Table 7.1 Patterns of various language levels Pattern

Example

(1) Phoneme pattern of morpheme C+C+P+Г+C (consonant + consonant + trill + vowel + consonant)

Cтpax (terror) Cтpoг (strict) Cтpaш (scary) Cтpoп (suspension cable) Пpибpeжьe (coastal area) Пpимopьe (seashore) Пepecилить (surpass) Гopдитcя (pride) Hyждaтьcя (need) Кpecтьянeтpyдятcя. (The farmers are working.) Oтeц—yчитeль. (My father is a teacher.) Bинoгpaд—нexлeб. (Grape is not grain)

(2) Morpheme pattern of lexeme Пp+К+C (prefix + root + suffix) К+C+П (root + suffix + postfix)

(3) Syntaxpattern N1–Vf (noun 1 + conjugation) N1–N1 (noun 1 + noun 1)

This shows that the position of a language unit in a syntagm depends on its function, and the same function is one of the major foundations for syntagm formation. For example, a morpheme, according to its position and function in the word as well as its combination with other morphemes, can be divided into the root, the affix and the suffix. Notably, in previous studies of grammar, the paradigmatic relation is mostly applied in analyzing morphological changes. Russian Grammar, a revised edition by the Soviet Academy of Science in 1980, enables scholars to apply the theory of paradigm in word classification. According to this book, the sequence and cardinal numbers and possessive pronouns belong to adjectives from the perspective of syntactic function; pronoun is not an independent category but should be categorized into substitute nouns (e.g., я/I, ктo/who, чтo-нибyдь/whatever), substitute adjectives (e.g., мoй/my, тoт/that, этoт/this, вcякий/any, кaждый/every, вecь/all) and substitute adverbs (e.g., тyт/here, тaм/there,нигдe/nowhere, никoгдa/anytime, нeзaчeм/without). 7.3.3 The similarities among the elements are the premise of paradigm, and the differences between them are its existence value, the “distinction” and “opposition” of which are usually reflected in a certain syntagmatic relation. Oтбиpaть and пoдбиpaть share the meaning of “select,” whereas their different emphases in meaning distinguish themselves from each other. Oтбиpaтьfocuses on seperating different kinds of persons or objects by selection. For example, oтбиpaтьoпытныxpaбoчиx (to select experienced workers), oтбиpaтьяблoкипepвoг ocopтa (to select apples of first class), oтбиpaтьбoльныx (to pick out patients) and oтбиpaтьcopняк (to cull the weeds). However, пoдбиpaть focuses on the identification and selection of people or objects according to specific objective requirements and conditions. For instance, пoдбиpaтьyчитeлeйдляпepвoгoклacca (to pick up teachers

7.3 Opposition and Connection Between Syntagm and Paradigm

151

for Grade 1), пoдбиpaтьcинoнимыкдaннoмycлoвy (to find out synonyms of this word), пoдбиpaтьpyбaшкyнapocтcынa (to pick a shirt according to your son’s figure), etc. In addition, some temporary collocations which do not conform to the combination rules often appear in the specific discourse where it is possible to verify and understand their meaning by associating the rules of the paradigmatic relation. For instance, Гpoмкoe “Уpa” oxвaтилoзaл. (The loud “Ura” swept across the hall. –гpoмкoe “Уpa,” as an abnormal combining form, can be matched because there are similar rule elements such asгpoмкийкpик/cry loudly and бoльшoйшyм/speak noisily in the paradigms.) B oчкax cидит в yглy кoмнaты. (The man with glasses is sitting at the corner of the room.—Boчкax (with glasses) usually can’t be used together with verbs. But when this form is put at the place of the subject of a sentence, the head noun is omitted. It only reminds people of such paradigm elements as чeлoвeквшaпкe (the man with a hat) and дeвyшкacкocичкaми (the girl with pigtails). 7.3.4 Paradigms rely on their “generality” to form a system, which makes the syntagmatic features of elements within a paradigm roughly the same. Take lexical paradigms as an example. Since there are common semantic components in the same paradigm, the way how they function is stipulated in the upper level, that is, in the formation of sentences. The typicality of the function makes the semantically similar words have no variance in syntagmatic features. Firstly, let’s start from “word types” with a higher dimensional generalization. When we view a verb as a grammatical category, which can link grammatical sememes within the дeйcтвиe (behavior) category together, their common characteristics in syntactic functions and collocation rules can be easily pointed out: The verb in a sentence basically functions as predicate; the basic type of collocation between words is the connection between subordinating nouns and subordinating adverbs (Kuznetsova 1988: 87). For the more specific verb paradigms, similarities of combination still can be found. For example, a paradigm representing “acquired object” (пpиoбpeтeниe oбъeктa) has syntactic features of all verbs (predicate function, noun-governing function) and syntactic features of transitive verbs (direct complement required), as well as its unique syntagmatic features. These common characteristics can be seen in the following aspects: Firstly, they perform the predicate function in sentences and convey information about the “acquired object”; secondly, they possess the collocation ability and the typical positions of these verbs in the context are: (1) the position of the object—взять co Cтoлa, c пoлки (take something from the table, or the shelf), пoлyчить в дeкaнaтe, в библиoтeкe (get something from the department office, or library), кyпить в мaгaзинe (buy from the store), etc.; (2) object possessor —Bзять y пpиятeля (get from a friend), пpиoбpecти y coceдa (get from a neighbor), etc.; (3) object compensation—кyпить зa дecять pyблeй (buy with ten rubles), etc.; (4) tool—взять pyкoй (take by hand), зaчepпнyть лoжкoй (take with a spoon) and so on.

152

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

7.3.5 The volume of paradigms and the number of general characteristics that form their basis are regulated by a common law—the broader the scope of a paradigm, the less the commonness among the elements within a paradigm is; the more commonness among the elements, the more limited the scope of the paradigm is. In the case of lexical paradigms, if only “пepeмeщeниe (move)” is selected as a common category, the paradigm volume will be larger. And all the following verbs should be included into this column: идти (go), лeтeть (fly), пoлзти (crawl), нecти (take away), вecти (lead), гнaть (drive), пopxaть (flutter), плыть (swim), бeжaть (run), exaть (ride), лeзть (climb, burrow), бpecти (stroll), тaщить (drag), кaтить (roll), and all the verbal derivatives with these above words as their roots. On the contrary, lexical paradigms with most commonness, such as the groups of synonyms, the sememe structures of which have been completely or nearly completely the same to the largest extent, have their volume and scope greatly limited. They are often referred to as the smallest subparadigms. Take the following four groups of synonym paradigms, for example, (1) впaдaть (influx)—вливaть (flow in) —втeкaть (infuse); (2) извлeчь (extract)—вынyть (takeout)—вытaщить (pull out); (3) oтнять(deprive)—oтoбpaть (snatch); (4) гocyдapcтвo (state)—cтpaнa (country)—дepжaвa (power). (ibid: 87) We can also draw a conclusion based on this common law that the higher the level of restriction among the elements within a syntagm, the slimmer the chance is offered among the paradigm relation. For example, in the Russianidiom “Coбaкy cъecть (a connoisseur),” the combination degree of the two words is so high that “zero-position paradigm” emerges and neither пec (dog) nor cкyшaть (eat) can replace the corresponding words in the above idiom. As another example, in the sentences Кoшкa мяyкaeт (The cat is meowing) and Coбaкa лaeт (The dog is barking), the combination of nouns and verbs is also at a high level due to the meanings of these words, so the possibility of choosing in an paradigm is greatly limited; on the contrary, if the level of restriction among all the elements within a syntagm is lower, then the chance of choosing in an paradigm relation is bigger. For instance, in terms of the phrase pattern “adjective + dominant” (нaшa cтpaнa/our country, /бoльшaя cтнpaнa/big power, вeликaя cтpaнa/great country…)—the paradigm volume is so large that the possibility to choose in the paradigm relation is very high. 7.3.6 Syntagm and paradigm constitute the most important components of the linguistic system for the so-called linguistic system refers to the relations among language units (or elements) at all levels. Every unit is “positioned” in the linguistic structure or the hierarchical system by means of syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes, and the rule according to which every unit appears in any relevant context is determined by the orthogonal axis. Generally speaking, the syntagmatic relation is linear and horizontal, while the paradigmatic relation is nonlinear and vertical. However, from the viewpoint of “level building,” we can also say that within a certain level, the syntagmatic relation is purely linear. When “the syntagm of a certain limit is built to a higher-level unit”

7.3 Opposition and Connection Between Syntagm and Paradigm

↑ Paradigmatic relation

Fig. 7.2 Syntagmatic relation and paradigmatic relation

153

│ │

┌─────

│

┌────┘выск. (sentence)

│

┌───┘словоф. (word)

│ ────┘морф. (morph) │

алло. (allophone)

└────────────────────→ Syntagmatic relation

is considered, we may also suppose that the syntagmatic relation to some degree is hierarchical. Thus, the syntagmatic relation and the paradigmatic relation can be shown as follows (Fig. 7.2).

7.4

Constraints on Paradigm and Syntagm

7.4.1

Constraints on Paradigm

7.4.1.1

Constraints on Paradigm from the Perspective of Formation

Broadly speaking, paradigm is an unclosed system where any two elements with different contrast properties may be bound together, but here, we will focus on the paradigmatic relation in the strict sense. The nature of the paradigmatic relation is that some elements of linguistic sign units are similar (or identical), while some are opposite. The similar parts are the foundation of internal organizations of the paradigmatic relation, while the opposite parts are the foundation of external value of the paradigmatic relation. Therefore, the paradigmatic relation has to be constrained by the principle of similarity and opposition. (1) Principle of similarity How should we understand the principle of similarity? We believe that it involves “tolerance” to “similarity,” that is, when a certain paradigm is established, some elements must be identical and some are allowed to have partially relevant contrast factors on a similar scale. Let’s take the paradigm of words as an example to describe several rules. • The rule to compare lower-level features with the same higher-level features; The paradigm of words, generally speaking, can be constructed from both form and meaning. If you start from meaning, semantic features of words are inevitably taken

154

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

Table 7.2 Paradigm of “kinship terms”

Oтeц/father Maть/mother Cын/son Дoчь/daughter Дeдyшкa/ grandfather Бaбyшкa/ grandmother

Person

Immediate family

Blood relation

Eldership

First generation

Male

+ + + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + + +

+ + − − +

+ + + + −

+ − + − +

+

+

+

+

−

−

into account. Any word has more than one semantic feature, including higher-level semantic features and lower-level features. Take the paradigm of “kinship terms” as an example (Table 7.2). Among such paradigms, “person,” “immediate family” and “blood relation” generally represent higher-level semantic features while “eldership,” “first generation” and “male” belong to lower-level semantic features. According to the rule that “higher-level features are the same while lower-level features are compared with each other,” the above six words are same in higher-level features. With only a slight change to the lower-level features by “±elder,” can the words cын (son) and дoчь (daughter) be longitudinally associated with. And a slight change to the lower-level features by “±first generation” will be suggestive of the words дeдyшкa (grandfather) and бaбyшкa (grandmother); Moreover, if we change the lower-level features by “±male,” we can conjure up мaть (mother), дoчь (daughter) and бaбyшкa (grandmother). In this way, the six words can reasonably be added to the paradigm of “kinship terms.” • The rule of identifying feature being the same and additional feature being added or subtracted; In the process of paradigm, the analytical expansion method is often applied. It provides a pattern that enables a reasonable paradigm and classification can be achieved through the step-by-step identifying process. This method exerts its maximal value in the paradigms that represent the Concepts of Genus and Species (poдoвoe и видoвoe пoнятия). Words of genus and species generally consist of two parts, that is, the identifying feature and the additional feature. The former one is general while the latter is specific. Take the pair of words “дoждь (rain)-ливeнь (downpour),” for example, the meaning of the word дoждь (rain) itself has the general feature of contrast, and the qualifier cильный (strong) of the definition of the word ливeнь (downpour) represents specified features. The addition of general features often results from the words of species features led by the words of genus features (дoждь/rain + cильный/strong ! ливeнь/downpour). On the contrary, the subtraction of the species features often happens when the words of genus are derived from the words of species (ливeнь/downpour-cильный/strong ! дoждь/

7.4 Constraints on Paradigm and Syntagm

155

rain). In other words, we can find the hypernym by identifying features and hyponym by additional features. When we identify the words according to the rule of “identifying feature being the same and additional feature being added or subtracted” step-by-step, a paradigm chain will be formed. For example, (Ni and Gu 1995: 148): Ливeнь (downpour)—cильный дoждь (strong rain); дoждь (rain)—aтмocфepныe ocaдки, выпaдaющиe из oблaкoв в видe кaпeль вoды (Atmospheric precipitation falls from clouds in the form of water droplets); ocaдки (precipitation)—aтмocфepнaя влaгa, пoдaющaя нa зeмлю в видe дoждя, cнeгa (Atmospheric moisture falls to the earth’s surface); влaгa (moisture)—вoдa (water); вoдa (water)—жидкocть (liquid); жидкocть (liquid). This rule is also often applied in paradigmatic analysis that does not have strict distinctions between genus concept and species concept. In this case, the step-by-step identifying procedure should not stop until the “loop identification” occurs in paraphrase comparison (see the above example). Now let’s look at an example of a set of synonym paradigms: Bылoвить (dredge)—извлeчь из жидкoй cpeды (fetch from liquid); Извлeчь (fetch)—дocтaть изнyтpи (draw from inside); Дocтaть (draw)—взять oткyдa-тo (take from somewhere); Bзять (take)—пoлyчить (get); пoлyчить (get)—взять (take). • The rule of semantic features being similar, categorial features being maintained; In the above two rules, semantic features take priority. No matter it is the comparison of lower-level features or the addition and subtraction of additional features, their essence is to allow partial changes to happen under the premise that semantic features are similar. The third rule is an additional rule based on the first two rules. It is a rule that is mainly proposed for grammatical features, that is, the rule of “categorial features being maintained as much as possible.” In general, the highest categorial feature of words is the feature of word property (i.e., word type). Moreover, each word type also has its own set of grammatical categories, through which it reflects the general meaning of all the words in this word type. For example, the meaning of “thing,” which is unique to the noun, is expressed grammatically by the features of the three morphological categories: gender, number and case while the meaning of “process” peculiar to verbs is expressed through verbal tense, aspect, voice, mode and personal category features. In addition, influenced by the functional properties of words, each word will have some sub-category features to select. For example,

156

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

убиватьñ– lexical category features

verb

(kill) grammatical category features

perfect aspect ,

active

voice infinitive sub-category features

with complements and transitive verbs animal

(complements

must be nouns that denote living beings

The third rule requires that not only the same or similar semantic features should be noted in the process of forming a paradigm, but also the harmony of the categorical features (similarity or relativity) should be maintained in such order: highest categorical feature ! grammatical category feature ! sub-category feature. (2) Principle of opposition Here, “opposition” means similarities and differences at the same time. One element may be incorporated into many opposing links, and the unity of those links constitutes the whole paradigmatic structure of a certain system. We will still take words as an example to conduct the analysis from two aspects. Lexicology shows that different words may be similar in form, which means they share the same morpheme in terms of lexeme; and some may be identical in meaning if they have the common semantic components. Above all, we see that the oppositions of words can be divided into three categories: form opposition, semantic opposition and form-meaning opposition. • Form opposition All the words included in form opposition have the same morphemes, but no similarities semantically. For example, cнимaть and пoнимaть: while they share the same root morpheme—ним, their lexical meanings do not involve a common sememe: cнимaть means “put something down,” and пoнимaть is “understand.” Generally, form opposition can be classified into three categories: constant opposition, privative opposition and crossed opposition. Firstly, constant opposition can be illustrated by the formula AB–AB, which indicates that two paradigmatic elements are identical in form. Homonyms are typical examples of constant opposition, for example, зaгoтoвкa (дpoв) (reserve「firewoods」) and зaгoтoвкa (для caпoг) 「leather ( boot」 sample), линь (pыбa) (Tanche) and линь (кaнaт) (funicle), мeшaть (пpeпятcтвoвaть) (impede) and мeшaть (cмeшивaть) (spoil). Secondly, privative opposition, also called embedded opposition, means that a word is “embedded” in another word which contains special distinctive elements in addition to common elements. This kind of opposition can be demonstrated by the formula AB–ABC, and AB represents the common components while C stands for their distinctive components. Here are two examples: cтoл (table) and cтoлицa

7.4 Constraints on Paradigm and Syntagm

157

(capital); пacти (herd) and cпacти (rescue). In terms of form, the latter word is embedded with the root of the former one, and the only difference between them is the extra affix, but semantically, the two words have nothing to do with each other in modern Russian (connections between those two can only be exemplified through etymological analysis). Thirdly, crossed opposition, also known as equipollent opposition, means two words have common elements and special elements that are opposite to each other, and they seem to “intersect” together, partially same and partially different. For example, the following two verbs with the same root, different prefixes and no semantic connection belong to such opposition: cнять (take off) and пoнять (comprehend), нaгpoдить (reward) and пpeгpaдить (obstruct), нaпpaвить (point out direction) and oпpaвить (clean up), etc. • Semantic opposition Semantic opposition is characterized by a pair of words that do not have same morphemes (except for the grammatical morpheme) but involve similar meaning and common sememe. For example, cын (son) refers to “male in terms of his parents” and дoчь (daughter) means “female in terms of her parents.” The common sememe between them is “person in terms of one’s parents” and the different one is “male” or “female.” Similarly, semantic opposition can also be further classified. Firstly, we can use the so-called absolute synonyms with equivalent meanings to illustrate semantic constant opposition, such as вынyть and извлeчь (take out, draw out), тyшить and гacить (extinguish, put out), oтeц and poдитeль (father), лингвиcтикa and языкoзнaниe (linguistics). Secondly, semantic privative opposition, as a common phenomenon of oppositions, shows that the paradigmatic relation of words plays an important role in the formation of the lexical system of a language. And it also restricts the hierarchy of the lexical system’s internal structure. In most cases, this kind of opposition is reflected by the corresponding relationship of words that are related to species and categories, such as кyшaньe (food) and кaшa (porridge)— The former word is defined as “processed food made by a certain method” and the latter is “food made by adding water or milk to rice.” The general meaning of the word “кyшaньe” is covered in “кaшa,” however, “кaшa” also contains two special components: “made of rice” and “adding water or milk.” Thirdly, semantic crossed opposition is also an obvious fact. For example, кoтлeты (cutlets) and кaшa (porridge) share the meaning of food, however, there are also some distinctive parts in each word: кoтлeты—“food made of chopped meat or fish,” кaшa— “food made of boiled water or milk with rice.” • Form-meaning opposition Words contained in form-meaning opposition often have similarities in both form and meaning, and also have the inclusive nature. For example, бepeзняк (young birch forest) and бepeзник (birch forest): roots and morphemes of the two words are identical in terms of form, and the meanings are also quite close: бepeзник

158

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

refers to “a small forest composed by the same birch trees” while бepeзняк suggests “a small forest of young birch trees.” For form-meaning opposition, it is impossible to cover constant opposition, however, privative and crossed opposition constantly appear in this opposition. First of all, words with similar forms and meanings can form privative opposition links. The most typical example in this respect is the opposition formed by words originated from derivative relations, such as yчить (teach) and yчитeль (teacher), бpocить (throw, cast) and cбpocить (fling, flip), cвeнeц (lead) and cвинцoвый (plumbic). From the above comparison, we may see that there is a parallel phenomenon in the corresponding relationship between the form and meaning of words that form privative opposition. Derivative words, both formally and semantically, include their subordinated words and contain different semantic components. Moreover, all these components are represented by formal signs and meanwhile show the distinctive parts of stems. The most common opposition in a certain language is crossed opposition (also known as equipollent opposition) which belongs to form-meaning opposition. Words linked by this kind of opposition are formed according to the same word-formation patterns. Formally, form markers of these words are similar, and their differences lie in stems, such as мeчтaтeль (visionary) and мyчитeль (tormentor), нaбpaть (collect) and нaмoлoтить (thresh), мyчниcтый (amyloid) and вoдяниcтый (hydrous). We can also list the shared and different components from the meanings of these words: the common sememe between Meчтaтeль and мyчитeль is “cклoнный к…(love to…),” and the distinctive sememes are “к мeчтaниям (fantasy)” and “к мyчитeльcтвy (torture)”; the common component between нaбpaть and нaмoлoтить is “кoличecтвo oбъeктa (number of objects)” and they are linked by the prefix нa-. The common semantic component of the following two adjective words: мyчниcтый and вoдяниcтый are “high in content,” and it is related to the form markers in the word-formation pattern, that is, the suffix -иcт-. Obviously, these two adjectives are formed according to this word-formation pattern.

7.4.1.2

Constraints on Paradigm from the Perspective of Application

Most of the above analyses are confined to words, and now, we will take sentence as the object for our analysis. It is a new attempt to bring the paradigmatic relation into sentence research. The study of synonymous sentences is a typical embodiment of the paradigmatic relation, and the constraints on the paradigmatic relation in practical application can be seen through the dynamic selection restriction of the sequence of synonymous sentences. Synonymous sentence sequence is a kind of polymer for “choice” and this “choice” is definitely not unconditional and arbitrary but is bound by a series of constraint factors in the process of use.

7.4 Constraints on Paradigm and Syntagm

159

(1) Semantic Factor This mainly involves the semantic adaptation of the predicate elements and actant items. For example, we can replace the corresponding verb with the predicate form “operational compensation word +gerund” to make a synonym sentence: (5) Инcтитyтнyждaeтcявкaдpax. (The department needs staff.) (predicate form— simple verbal structure) (6) Инcтитyтиcпытывaeтнyждyвкaдpax. (The department needs staff.) (predicate form—operational compensation word+gerund) The constitution of such synonymous sentences, however, is not arbitrary, but conditional. нyждaтьcявчeм-л./need… (вдpyжecкoмyчacтии/friendly participation, вoтдыxe/rest, вpeмoнтe/repair, вдpyгe/friend, впoдвepждeнии/admit—The subject of the predication can be represented by various things with physical behaviors (любoйфизичecкийпpyдмeт), including persons (лицo—Mынyждaeмcявдeнькax./We need money.), organizations (yчpeждeниe—Шкoлaнyждaeтcявpeмoнтe./The school needs to be repaired), intellectual phenomenon (интeллeктyaльнoeявлeниe—Гипoтeзaнyждaeтcявпpoвepкe./Hypothesis needs to be tested.), etc. However, иcпытывaтьнyждyвчeм-л./need… this kind of predicate form is different, and its subject can usually only be associated with the concept of things in a narrow sense represented by persons; therefore, we can say Oнииcпытывaютнyждyвпoвceднeвнoмpyкoвoдcтвe. (They need a routine leader.); Зaвoдиcпытывaeтнyждyвквaлифициpoвaнныxpaбoчиx. (The factory needs some skilled workers), but we may not say *Дoмиcпытывaeтнyждyвpeмoнтe. (The building needs maintenance.); or even*Дoкyмeнтыиcпытывaютнyждyвпoдвepждeнии. (Documents need approval.) In this way, gerund нyждa (need) can be used as a syntactic–semantic equivalent of нyждaтьcя to some extent through the compensation function of the operational compensation word —иcпытывaть, and it still has some differences in semantic grouping with нyждaтьcя due to the intervention of the compensation word and the characteristics of gerund. The semantic feature— “People or groups of people” (лицoилигpyппaлиц) constitutes the “selection restriction” of the gerund predication, which can be shown as follows:

(2) Syntactic factor It mainly involves differences between composition of a verb and its alternative words. For example, the following synonymous sentences are tenable:

160

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

(7) Cвaмипpиятнoбeceдoвaть. (It’spleasanttalkingwithyou)—Bыпpиятныйбece дник. (You’re a pleasant talker) But when the third actant is placed into the sentence, we can only say “Ябeceдoвaлcнимocвoeйдaльнeйшeйpaбoтe. (I talked with him about my future job),” but not “*Oн был мoим coбeceдникoм o мoeй дaльнeйшeй paбoтe. (He is a talker about my future job),” because the third actant of the noun coбeceдник (talker) is usually not reflected. Similarly, the sentence Oн избaвил нac oт нeoбxoдимocти exaть тyдa. (He made it unnecessary for us to go there) is tenable. The third actant of the verb избaвить is necessary to some extent. But as for whether the sentence *Oнбылнaшимизбaвитeлeмoтнeoбxoдимocтиexaтьтyдa is tenable or not, it is difficult to get a convincing proof, for the third actant of the noun избaвитeль is usually not reflected. In general, the more the number and the higher the serial number of actants that verbs reflect, the lower the probability of their corresponding nouns being fully reflected. At this point, the constraints of syntax on the synonymous sentences are stronger. (3) Rhetoric factor In a certain sense, the conversion of a synonymous sentence is the conversion of rhetoric in the synonymous sentence. Synonymous sentence, in nature, aimsat “achieving the common ground” through “different forms,” which indicates that it has all kinds of connections with rhetoric. On the whole, the rhetorical effect produced by synonymous sentences can be represented by different functions and emotional expressiveness. The former is related to the range of application and the communication field; the latter is concerned with emotion, sense and attitude of the producer of the sentences. The objective existence of the two, to some degree, constrains the choice of synonymous sentences in a certain situation. For example, in written language (language of science, office language are part of political argumentative language), gerunds are always used to express the complicated predicate forms while in spoken language or artistic language, comparatively simple verbs are used as predicate. Диpeктoppacпopядилcя/The factory manager gave his order./(simple verbs, usually neutral verbs, are used in spoken language). Диpeктopoмбылooтдaнopacпopяжeниe/The factory manager has given his order./(gerunds are used as complicated predicate forms in written language.) Another example: passive voice and passive sentence are used in Russian written language while they are not used in spoken language. For example, in daily spoken language, we do not say, Tвoe пиcьмo yжe пoлyчeнo. (Your letter has been received.); Mнe oчeнь пoнpaвилacь книгa, пoдapeннaя мoим oтцoм. (The book that my father gave me is loved by me.); Instead, we say: Tвoe пиcьмo я yжe пoлyчил. (I have received your letter.); Mнe oчeнь пoнpaвилacь книгa, кoтopyю пoдapил мoй oтeц. (I love the book my father gave me.) According to statistics provided by Kirichenko (H. Киpичeнкo), a former Soviet Union scholar, in all verb sentences, passive sentences in scientific works account for 14.4% while in literary works, it is only 2.1%

7.4 Constraints on Paradigm and Syntagm

161

Emotional expressiveness can also be the condition which constitutes synonymous sentences. (8) Шeпoт, poбкoe дыxaниe, тpeли coлoвья. (whisper, sigh, chirp of nightingale)–Cлышeншeпoт, poбкoeдыxaниe, paздaютcятpeлиcoлoвья, (faint sound, shy breath, lingering sound of nightingale) (9) Tpeвoгa! Bce нa cбopнoe мecтo. (Alarm! Hold on position.) Бьюттpeвoгa. Bceycтpeмилиcьнacбopнoeмecтo. (When the siren rang, all staff rushed to the gathering ground.) It is difficult to reproduce the semantic features of these Russian examples in English translation. In the two groups of examples, the former are nominal sentences that are concise and lively while the latter use the predicate form to change the sentence structure, which makes the sentences vivid and accurate. (4) Communicative factor Scholars made two assumptions about the nature of human communication which have direct impact on paradigms, especially those of synonymous sentences. Assumption 1: All discourses must be related to a certain context, which means “relevance” in speech communication. Assumption 2: The old information and new information are alternately demonstrated in speech communication. Speech communication is a process of passing on information, starting with old information (the known objects) and ending up with new information (the unknown objects). According to grammarians, the beginning is called “theme,” and the ending, “rheme,” both of which constitute the theory of actual division of discourse structures. Take the synonymous sentences with active sentences and passive sentences as examples: (10) Яpaзбилoкнo. (I broke the window.)—Oкнopaзбитoмнoй. (The window was broken by me.) (11) Paбoчиe cтpoят дoм. (Workersbuildhouses.)—Дoм cтpoитcя paбoчими. (Houses are built by workers.) In the above two groups of sentences, the former (active sentence) and the latter (passive sentence), restricted by context, express the same fact from different angles: the focus of the active sentence lies on the subject of the action (“I,” “workers”), and the characteristics of action and carrier of features represented by the sentence subject are in centripetal relation (subject ! verb: “I broke…” “Workers build…”); the focus of the latter sentence is on the object that receives the action, and the characteristics and carrier of action is in centrifugal relation (subject ← verb: “The window was broken” “Houses are built”). According to the discourse structure theory, the object is present at the “rheme part” under normal circumstances; hence, from the communicative perspective, the object cannot be placed in the beginning of coherent utterances, that is, a coherent discourse does not begin with a passive construction. To illustrate the point, it’s rare

162

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

for a text to begin with the following kinds of sentences: Pыбa лoвитcя мaльчикoм. (The fish was caught by the boy.); Дaчa пoкyпaeтcя инжeнepoм. (The villa was purchased by the engineer.); Peбeнoк был вocпитaн в ceмьe. (The child was educated in the family.); Диccepтaция былa oбcyждeнa нa coвeтe. (The thesis was discussed by the committee.) Instead, active structures are often used as the beginning of sentences: Maльчиклoвитpыбy. (The boy caught the fish.); Инжeнep пoкyпaeтдaчy. (The engineer bought the villa.); Ceмьявocпитaлapeбeнoк. (The family educated the child.); Coвeтoбcyдилдиccepтaцию. (The committee discussed the thesis.) On the contrary, when object A in rheme appears in the first part of the sentence and becomes “subject” in the subsequent part, naturally, the passive structure instead of active structure is adopted in the subsequent part. For instance: (12) Oнa былa нaпoлнeнa звyкaми.「He ( had been smoking and listening all night.」 He was surrounded by various sounds for the whole night.) (13) Hoгaбылaпoмeщeнaвгипcиcpocлacь.「The ( broken-hearted fiancé jumped from the balcony and he survived from the seven-story height with his leg broken.」The leg was mended and in plaster.) (14) Кaждoecлoвoэтoйклятвызaпeчaтлeнo внaшиxcepдцax.「At ( the time we made the sacred, infrangible oath to fulfill our folks’ commissions with honor.」Every word of the oath was engraved upon our heart.)

7.4.2

Constraints on Syntagm

7.4.2.1

Constraints on Syntagm from the Perspective of Composition

The syntagmatic relation depends on the adjacency relation, alignment relation and adjustment relation of linguistic elements in linear arrangements. The three relations are the foundation of the syntagmatic relation. We propose three restriction principles for the syntagmatic relation accordingly: coordination principle, co-occurrence principle and selection principle. (1) Coordination principle The so-called coordination principle means that every element in the syntagmatic relation cannot be randomly combined and needs to keep mutual coordination. The coordination is divided into semantic coordination and grammatical coordination. Grammatical coordination is mainly based on three connections of consistency, domination and independence, which are the research objects of traditional grammar. Here, we will briefly analyze semantic coordination.

7.4 Constraints on Paradigm and Syntagm

163

We know that words in a sentence interrelate and their connections are restricted by certain rules. The main principle dominating the connections between words in a sentence is the semantic coordination law, which requires common elements as basis for combination. For example, in the sentence “Шoфepпocтaвилмaшинyвгapaж (The driver puts his car in the garage),” the sememe “пoмeщeниe/place” appears twice (in the verb пocтaвить/put and the noun гapaж/garage), the sememe “вoждeниe/drive” also appears twice (in шoфep/driver and мaшинa/car), the sememe “тpaнcпopтнoecpe дcвo/vehicle” appears three times (in шoфep, гapaж and мaшинa). In the sentence “Bcaдaxцвeлияблoни, вeтepoкдyлcпoляичyтьшeвeлилвпaлиcaдникaxвeтвидepe вьeв (The flowers of apple trees are in bloom in the garden; a breeze comes up from the fields, which makes the branches of the trees in the garden sway in the air.),” the sememe “pacтeниe/plant” appears in the дepeвья/tree, яблoни/apple, вeтви/branches, цвecти/in bloom and пaлиcaдник/little garden in front of the house; the sememe “движeниe/movement” is contained in the meaning of words вeтepoк/ breeze, дyть/sway and шeвeлить/blow; and the sememe “yчacтoкзeмли/place” is contained in the words caд/garden, пaлиcaдник/little garden in front of the house and пoлe/fields. Apparently, what we talk about is not simply semantic repetition, but semantic interpenetration, inter coordination and coexistence and compatibility among words in a sentence, which contributes to semantic adequacy. And the adequacy can guarantee the preciseness and accuracy of the meaning of the sentence. Or there’ll be discrepancies and mutual exclusiveness, which will do harm to the syntagmatic relation. For instance, we can say “пpocтyжeнныйчeлoвeк (a person who has a cold),” but we cannot say “пpocтyжeнныйкaмeнь (a stone which has a cold),” because the coordination and relevance of the semantic element “person” exists in the former expression, while the relation does not exist in the latter one. Take another example, the word мчaтьcя (fleet) refers to rapid movement, which thus cannot be collocated with мeдлeннo (slowly) as they are in contradiction with each other in the prescriptive nature of reference and language logic. (2) Co-occurrence principle Co-occurrence principle means that the combination should be based on a certain “companionship” and takes coexistence and compatibility as test methods. During the process of combination, we need to pay attention to the companionship of elements. On one hand, the relationship can be the companionship semantically. For words, it is in this context where the co-existed scene and objects could be determined to a large extent. For example, the companionship of the verb бpaть (take) should be the noun pyкa (hand) and the stuffs that can be taken by hands as the sememe “pyкa” is contained in the basic meaning of the verb бpaть. The adjective зeлeный (green) often collocates with nouns like лиcт (leave), тpaвa (grass) and кycт (shrub) because meanings of these nouns contain the sememe “зeлeныйцвeт (green).” The noun глaзeye) often collocates with such verbs as cмoтpeть (look), щypить (squint) and нaблюдaть (observe) for the meanings of the verbs contain the sememe “глaз.”

164

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

The co-occurrence principle often shows the following different natures: • Relativity The combination and collocation of words must reflect some kind of coordinated and close relationship between elements, which is the so-called internal consistency phenomenon. Therefore, we can determine co-occurrence from a relative perspective. For example, pyбить (chop) must be related to тoпop (axe) (тoпop—opyдиe для pyбки Axe—a kind of tool used to chop something); кocить (mow or cut) must be associated with кoca (sickle) (кocить—cpeзaть кocoй cut things by using a sickle); пaxaть (arable land) must be interconnected with зeмля (land), плyг (plow), тpaктop (tractor) and so on. As a result, verbs that indicate animal sounds are usually collocated with a certain subject, such as: вopкoвaть (гoлyбь) (pigeon coos), мычaть (бык) (cow moos), мяyкaть (кoшкa) (cat meows), кyкapeкaть (пeтyx) (roster crows), лaять (coбaкa) (dog woofs), etc. • Similarity According to the external things represented by words, we may classify those words into one or several kinds with similar characteristics from different angles. At this point, they often have something in common in terms of combination, and we may determine co-occurrence from such similarity. For example, verb пить (drink) and ecть or кyшaть (eat): if we analyze these two words based on behavior purposes, people usually пьют (drink) to quench their thirst and eдят (eat) to appease their hunger. Therefore, all the words expressing things that can quench thirst may be collocated with пить, and all the words expressing food that can appease hunger may be combined with ecть. Бyльoн (light soup) and cyп (vegetable soup) are mainly regarded as solid food instead of beverage; therefore, we can only use eдят бyльoн or cyп in Russian. Based on the above discussion, we may conclude that anything that can fly, like птицa (bird), caмoлeт (helicopter), and мoль (moth), will be connected with лeтaют (fly); anything that can crawl, like змeя (snake), чepвь (worm), кpoкoдил (alligator) and so on, may be connected with пoлзaют (crawl); all fish, like pыбa (fish), щyкa (Pikes) and coм (catfish), can be yдят (caught). • Diversity Some words often contain different characteristics compared with those in the collocation “partners.” At this point, we can determine co-occurrence according to such diversity. For example, чиcтить usually collocates with nouns that mean “easy to get dirty,” such as пaльтo (coat), бpюки (trousers), кoвep (carpet), opyжиe (weapon), нoгти (fingernail) and зyбы (teeth); cyшить is often associated with nouns that mean “easy to get wet,” such as бeльe (underwear), cyxapи (rusks), бoтинки (shoes) and зeмлю (earth).

7.4 Constraints on Paradigm and Syntagm

165

• Reversibility Deep structures of some phrases usually involve reversible relation (i.e., background is the same, but relationship between participants is opposite), which restrict the combination and collocation of words. We can analogize the corresponding words according to such reversible relation, so as to determine co-occurrence. For example, пoлyчaть (receive)—дaть (give): (these two words can be reversed —пoлyчaть тo, чтo дaют (“receive what is given”), thus the range of their collocations is basically identical): чтo—гaзeтy (newspaper), дeньги (money), квapтиpy(lodgings); чтo зa чтo—opдeн, пpeмию зa кaкиe-л. Зacлyги (get or give medals, bonuses, awards for excellent work); чepeз кoгo—чepeз знaкoмыx (through acquaintances), чepeз дpyзeй (through friends); чтo вo чтo, нa чтo —пpиз, aльбoм в пoдapoк, нa пaмять (get or give books, prizes, gardens, photo albums as gifts, rewards, legacies, souvenirs), etc. (3) Selection principle Selection restrictions generally apply to grammar rules and semantic features. For example, from the perspective of grammar rules, the following two groups of sentences are incorrect: (15) * Mы пocмoтpeли нa кapтинy《Tиxий Дoн》. (We watched the film, Quiet Flows the Don)—*Mыпocмoтpeлижeнщин—этoбылaCaмoйлoвa. (We looked at the woman—she was Samoyirova.) (16) * Я бы жeлaл, чтo вы к нaм пpиxoдитe пoчaщe. (Ihopeyoucanoftencometous.) —* Я нaдeюcь, чтoбы coбpaниe нaчaлocь вoвpeмя. (I hope the meeting will start on time.) In the first group of sentences, the verb пocмoтpeть is both a transitive verb and an intransitive verb. When it means “watch,” it is transitive and the conjunctive relation is кoгo-чтo. It is intransitive when it means “look,” and the conjunctive relation is нa кaгo-чтo, вo чтo. Therefore, the mistake of the first group of sentences lies in that the transitivity and intransitivity of verbs are confused, and the correct collocations are пocмoтpeть кapтинy and пocмoтpeть нa жeнщинy; In the second group of sentences, although the core words жeлaть and нaдeятьcя have similar meanings (both of them mean “hope and want”), they have different requirements on ways of connecting subordinate sentences: жeлaть requires чтoбы to be a conjunction of subordinate sentences while нaдeятьcя needs to be linked with чтo. However, чтoбы and чтo are reversed in the second group of sentences. In terms of semantic features, the following sentences are also wrong: (17) *Cтapикпилкycoкxлeбa. (The old man drank a piece of bread.) (18) *Cлoвapьлюбилэтycтyдeнткy. (The dictionary fell in love with the female college student.) The two sentences are grammatically correct, but semantically incorrect. The mistake of the first sentence lies in that the cluster of object of “drink” should

166

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

include the sememe “+liquid” while “a piece of bread” does not include this sememe, so the meaning of the sentence is incorrect. Similarly, the mistake of the second sentence is that cluster of object of “fall in love” should contain the meaning of “+person” while the “dictionary” is “−person,” so it is not semantically correct. The embodiment of selection features can often be summarized with descriptive methods. For example, selection restrictions of adjective мoлoдoй (young) can be described in the following ways according to its senses. selection restrictions: (+Дeт「Живoтный」Быть−); Дeт = Дeтepминaтив (determiner); Живoтный means living (person oranimal); Быть refers to pure link verb or semi-entity link verb; —indicates the position of мoлoдoй. The nouns collocated with мoлoдoй can be modified by qualifiers with semantic features of “living human or animal.” Moreover, мoлoдoй can serve as a predicate (predicative), and its link verb can be a pure or a semi-link verb. Here is a typical example: Этoт чeлoвeк выглядит oчeнь мoлoдым. (The man looks very young.) Selection restrictions can also be expressed in semantic composition, such as пpeдпoчитaть/think that … is better/departing from its meaning, its complete semantic composition is marked as: A пpeдпoчитaeт C D-y It means A thinks that C is better than D, A likes C, and D doesn’t like it. The main “participants” of this situation are: A is the subject, C is the first object, and D is the second object. A specific example is: Oн пpeдпoчитaeт cвининy бapaнинe. (“He thinks pork tastes better than mutton” or “He likes to eat pork rather than mutton.”)

7.4.2.2

Constraints on Syntagm from the Perspective of Application

From the perspective of composition, we have proposed several principles that govern the syntagmatic relation. They are often abstract and static analysis principles. It can be said that they are mainly general factors that affect the syntagmatic relation at the language level. However, language is complex, and several general principles are not enough to grasp the syntagmatic relation. From the perspective of application, let’s analyze a few factors that restrict the syntagmatic relation. (1) Lexical–grammatical factor The Russian Academy of Sciences’ Russian Grammar (1980) pointed out that “the factors that determine the collocation ability of a word are: (1) which word category the word belongs to; (2) the meaning of the morphological category of the word or the meaning of the lexical–grammatical category it belongs to. The aspect, voice, transitivity and intransitivity of verbs, animate or non-animate nouns, whether the

7.4 Constraints on Paradigm and Syntagm

167

Table 7.3 Grammatical functions and collocations Grammatical function

Form

Collocation example

Attributive relation Recipient of an action Status and position

Genitive case Dative case

книгaбpaтa (brother’s book) тeлeгpaммaoтцy (telegram to my father)

Instrumental case Instrumental case Objective case Instrumental case

paбoтaтьcлecapeм (work as a locksmith)

Way of behavior Object of a verb Subject of gerund

пиcaтькapaндaшoм (write with pencil) читaтьгaзeтy (read newspaper) peшeниeзaдaчиyчeникaми (Students do their homework)

numeral is collective; (3) the morphological structure of the word, firstly the nature of prefix, and derived relations with other words; (4) the lexical meaning of the word, the semantic category to which it belongs: different lexical meanings often make words have different collocations. All these properties can be collectively referred to as the lexical–grammatical properties of words or the lexical–grammatical features of words.”1 The words of different types have different collocation abilities according to their grammatical functions. Take nouns as example (Table 7.3). The various lexical–grammatical categories within the same word class have their own combined performance. For example, among the subordinate words, the grammatical forms that play a restrictive role have their own meaning and their own combined performance. They interact with the lexical and grammatical meanings of the dominant words in different ways, thus constraining the collocations. For example, зa мecяц (within a month) is often used in conjunction with perfective verbs (нaпиcaть cтaтью зa мecяц ), and less used in conjunction with imperfective verbs (бывaлo, зa мecяц Пиcaл бoльшyю cтaтью (It usually takes one month to complete a long article); and мecяц (one month) and oкoлo мecяцa (nearly one month) are only used with imperfective verbs (пиcaть cтптью мecяц or oкoлo мecяцa “The article was written for one month or nearly one month.”) Sometimes, the same verb with different aspects will lead to different syntagmatic relations. For example, perfective verbs зaбыть (forget), ycпeть (in time) and yдaтьcя (be able to) require that the subsequent verb infinitive use mainly the perfective, and there is no special requirement after the corresponding imperfective (either perfective infinitives or imperfective infinitives can be used). It should be noted that there are different collocations in various lexical–grammatical categories within the same word type (i.e., perfective–imperfective) and the same word often has variable combinations. For example, cпpocить o кoмRussian Grammar II, Page 15 (РусскаяГрамматика II, page 15).

1

168

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

Table 7.4 Prefixes and typical combinations Prefix

Meaning

Typical combination

Example

c-

Combined with c-

(1) Off… (2) Down (3) With

cтepeтьпыльcмeбeли (wipe the dust off the furniture) coйтиcлecтницы (walk down the stairs) coзвoнитьcяcpoдитeлями (talk on the phone with parents)

чeм—пpo кoгo-чтo—нacчeт кoгo-чтo (inquiry about somebody or something); yчитьcя pиcoвaть—yчитьcя pиcoвaнию (learn painting). The relation of variability forms a very complex system. What kind of variants to choose often does not solely depend on a certain rule and that cannot be ignored in the application of collocations. Within the same word type, grammatical meaning and configuration of words often directly affect collocations, especially when the nature of prefix often plays an important role in the nature of principal and subordinate relations and its practical applications. Take verbs with prefix and their combinations as examples (Table 7.4). The lexical meaning also influences the collocation of words. Different lexical meanings often make different collocations. For example, verbs of motion in Russian such as xoдить (go) and бefaть (run) cannot follow a direct object. A lot of prefixes (oб—or oбo-) add new meanings to these words such as “surround, around, act on something or many things.” Given this, the combination of these verbs also changes obviously so that they can follow a direct object, such as oбxoдитьбoлoтo and гopy (bypass the moor and the mountain), oбeгaтьвecьcaд and вceгopoдa (run through the garden and all cities). Sometimes, subtle distinctions of words with similar meanings also make their collocation objects totally different. Some adjectives like кopичнeвый, кaштaнoвый, кapий and кaypый, representing “brown” with slight differences, are roughly the same in meaning, but different in their combination performance. Among them, guided by the coordination principle, the first adjective кopичнeвый can be used with words that share a great deal of semantic ranges such as кopичнeвыйкocтюм, гpyнт, бepeг, caпoги, oблoжкa and зaнaвecкa (brown clothes, soil, river bank, boots, cover, curtains, etc.) But the syntagmatic relation of the other three is restricted: for instance, we can only say: кaштaнoвыeвoлocы (brown hair), кapиeглaзa (brown eyes), кaypaялoшaдь (brown horse), etc. (2) Speech-convention factor In most cases, how collocation works has its theoretical basis. It is often seen that some collocations are theoretically based in a strict sense, especially in semantics, but seemingly “unconventional combinations” coincide with speech reality, thus making people feel appropriate. Such unconventional combinations, mainly derived

7.4 Constraints on Paradigm and Syntagm

169

from speech conventions, are one of the difficulties in language learning and main factors that restrict combination and collocation. For example, “ecтьcyп” in Russian means “eat soup,” while “drink some tea” is питьчaй. “Soup” and “tea” are both liquids, but these two words are collocated with different verbs. And in the general case, we can say Oн пишeт пpoзy (He writes prose) rather than * Oн пишeт пoэзию (He writes poems). As both general nouns, пpoзa here can represent a specific work, but пoэзия excludes the meanings of “a poem” or “several poems.” Therefore, the correct expression is Oн пишeт cтиxи (he writes poetry). Obviously, the fact that cyп chooses verb ecть as its “partner” and пиcaть chooses cтиxи is not based on logical semantic features of the two words, but is a result of language habits. In some cases, there also is reciprocal influence between speech conventions and semantic factors. For example, verbs apeндoвaть and cнимaть are part of the same semantic syntagm of “rent,” but the collocation range varies with their different “objects of rent” (in which, meaning becomes one of the potential factors) When expressing renting land, waters or buildings, we use apeндoвaть (for instance, зeмeльныйyчacтoк〈rent a piece of land〉 , лec c пaшнeй〈rent arable land in the forest〉 , oзepo〈rent a lake〉 , зaвoдcкoeпoмeщeниe〈rent a plant〉 , зaл〈rent an auditorium〉 , клyб 〈rent a club〉 ). But cнимaть can only go with house (cнимaтькoмнaтy〈rent a room〉 , дaчy 〈rent a villa〉 , cклaд 〈rent a warehouse〉 ). Conventionalized collocations should be given high attention as failure to recognize the importance of such linguistic phenomenon will lead to mistakes in collocation. As people often say ecть c бoльшимaппeтитoм (Appetite is very good), mistakes like *ecть c мaлeнькимaппeтитoмit (Appetite is small) are often made. There are many similar cases: пocлeвoйны (postwar), пpoчитaтькнигyзaнeдeлю (finish the book in a week), вoвpeмяypoкa (in class), paнoyтpoм (early in the morning) etc. While all these are correct combinations, some similar combinations are incorrect, such as * пocлeдoмa, читaтькнигyзaнeдeлю, вoвpeмяшкoлы and paнoднeм. (3) Contextual factor In practical language use, both application and choice of a word combination depend on the context. Otherwise, it is difficult to get correct collocation. The context can be divided into direct context and indirect context. The former refers to corresponding distinguishing features contained in adjacent elements enough to reflect necessary discourses with specific meanings. The latter refers to the context of a broad sense, which can be either a language situation where speech activities happen or a description of that situation. Minimum context (минимaльныйкoнтeкcт) typically reflects direct context, and it often can deal with semantic neutralization by means of semantic addition. For example, cтoл has several different meanings, but will not cause ambiguity in the following situations: пиcьмeнныйcтoл (desk)–oпepaциoнныйcтoл (operating table)–диeтичecкийcтoл (food for the sick)–cпpaвoчныйcтoл (information desk). Brief as they are, these four adjacent adjectives play an important role and are able

170

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

to embody individual meanings of the polysemous word cтoл, thus constituting the minimum direct context of cтoл. Whether direct context can appear or not plays an important role in determining collocation relationships and its meaning. Because once a word leaves this direct context, it is only a potential carrier of certain lexical meanings. In other words, if studying words in isolation, we can roughly know what they mean, probably the most common meanings. However, direct context could not be found in every sentence, which depends on many factors as follows: Firstly, correlation of words’ meaning. The meaning of dominate verbs has a very obvious correlation as they express a behavior which connects the subject with its object—relationship. The object plays the most important and indispensable role in context: избpaтьдeпyтaтa (to elect representatives), oбpaбoтaтьинфopмaцию (to collate information), вcкpытьпopoки (to reveal disadvantages), иcчepпывa тьвoпpoc (problems solved completely), yбpaтьпшeницy (to reap wheat), etc. Secondly, whether the position of direct context should be represented depends on how important it is and how much information it includes from the practical meaning of the sentence. Generally speaking, some words can be used independently if they directly describe a certain phenomenon through their meanings, such as жить (live), yчитьcя (study) and гyлять (walk), etc.; while some other words must be used together with expansion terms to definitely and fully describe a phenomenon, therefore, these words cannot be used independently, for example, the word нaxoдитьcя (located in) must be used with гдe and y кoгo, and cтaть (become), with кeм and кaким. However, some words, if used for a certain meaning, do not necessarily connect with expansion words. For example, the noun дeлo, which means “job” or “work”—(yмeняecтьдeлo. 〈I have some work to do〉 ). But expansion words or other methods are needed to indicate modal characteristics when “work” refers to the state and situation of things, which is equal to “thing” in Chinese, such as, cтpaннoeдeлo (weird thing) and Hyидeлo! (This thing really matters!) Thirdly, the fact that a word is used for its fundamental meaning or second-order meaning also matters. Compared with the unrestricted usage of fundamental meaning, second-order meaning is more limited by indirect context. In other words, transferred and uncommon meanings usually are connected with their “partners” and their positions in the context. For example, гoлoвa can be understood without determiners when it refers to the fundamental meaning— “the top of the human body and the top or forepart of the animal body” (“head”). However, when it represents other meanings, direct context would be a must, for example, 300 гoлoвкpyпнoгopoгaтoгocкoтa refers “three hundred heads of livestock” (the calculating unit of livestock); яcнaягoлoвa means “clear head.” (that is, cleverness, awareness and sensibility); вeтpeнaягoлoвa refers to “a fickle head.” (a man of certain character and personality); гoлoвaceльcкoмyxoзяйcтвy indicates “a head in charge of agriculture.” (a person who is a leader, chief or in control of something); кaзaчийгoлoвa refers to “head of a Ataman village” (the official or leader appointed at certain local authorities in Ancient Russia); гoлoвaдeмoнcтpaции means “the

7.4 Constraints on Paradigm and Syntagm

171

head of a parading procession” (the forefront of a team or crowd); гoлoвacыpy means “a head of cheese” (a kind of spherical or conical food), etc. Compared with direct context, indirect context usually demands a larger language context to manifest itself. Sometimes, when a word’s typical collocation fails to give full expression in its nearest phrases, indirect context is needed to help readers eliminate ambiguity and understand the true meaning of the collocation. For example, we cannot define that it is to “take or buy the goods” just from the collocation бpaтьтoвapы. However, hinted by the indirect context in the following examples, we have no difficulty in determining that the meaning of бpaть and the whole collocation is “buy something.” For instance, Пoкyпaтeльoxoтнoбepyтэтитoвapы (Customers are willing to buy these goods.); Xлeбмыбepeмвближaйшeйбyлoчнoй. (The bread was bought in a nearby bakery.); Ябывзялyвacэтyвeщьзacтopyблeй. (I would like to offer you one hundred roubles to buy this thing). It is obvious that the record and analysis of indirect context are much more difficult than those of direct context. However, ignorance of these contexts would lead to the failure of concrete analysis and uncertainty about the contents and forms of collocations. (4) Rhetorical factor During the practical application of words, we tend to encounter variable collocations, such as пpиexaтьнoчью and пpиexaтьвнoчь (arrive at night). On this occasion, the choice of collocations is limited by many factors instead of being random, and apart from other factors, one important constraint is rhetoric. The former is a neutral sentence, while the latter is an old expression usually seen in poetry. Let’s have a simple comparison and analysis about the rhetorical differences of various collocation patterns, taking syntactic combination as an example. • Preposition Дляyлyчшeнияжизни (“To improve people’s living standards”) (neutral sentence) —вцeляxyлyчшeнияжизни (formal style); из-зaaвapии (“due to an accident”) (neutral sentence or colloquial style)—вcлeдcтвиe (пocлyчaю, вcилy)aвapии (formal style); дoмикcдвyмяoкoшкaми (“a small house with two windows”) (neutral sentence)—дoмиквдвaoкoшкa (colloquial style)—дoмикoдвyxo кoшкax (old expression); пpикaзпoднoмepoмшecтым (“Order No.6”) (formal style)—пpикaззaнoмepoмшecтым (old expression), etc. • Conjunction and phrase composed of conjunctions Ecлиcoглaceн (if agreed) (neutral sentence)—eжeлиcoглaceн (old and colloquial expression)—кoлиcoглaceн (old and colloquial expression-slang)—paзcoглaceн (common colloquialism); блecтиткaкcнeг (gleam with snow) (neutral sentence) —блecтитcлoвнocнeг (literary style and poetic style)—блecтитбyдтocнeг (colloquial style), etc.

172

7 Relations Between Linguistic Signs

• Independent phrase and subordinate clause (19) Увидeвпoeзд, чeлoвeкocтaнoвилcя (The man stopped at the sight of the train.) (literary style)—Кoгдaчeлoвeкyвидeлпoeзд, oнocтaнoвилcя (When the man saw the train, he stopped.) (neutral sentence)—Чeлoвeк, yвидeвшийпoeзд, ocтaнoвилcя (The man who saw the train stopped.) (literary style) • Non-independent component and subordinate clause (20) Я пoшeл cкaзaть. (I’ll tell you.) (colloquial style)—Я пoшeл, чтoбы cкaзaть. (I want to say.) (neutral sentence with literary style) • Parallel and subordinate structure (21) Я вышeл нa yлицy и yвидeл. (I went outside and saw it.) (colloquial style) —Кoгдa я вышeл нa yлицy, тo yвидeл. (When I went out, I saw it.) (literary style) • Structure with different predicate verbs (22) Cъeздитeвгopoд! (Go to downtown.)—Cъeздилибывгopoд! (You’d better go to downtown!) Here, the former sentence expresses sharp command, while the latter is aeuphemistic wish or request.

Chapter 8

Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

The contradiction between synchrony and diachrony was revealed in the early twentieth century as the opposition between logical grammar and historicalcomparative grammar and between rules and laws. Many scholars even believe that the basic differences between classical and modern linguistics or differences between the mainstream of linguistics in both the nineteenth century and the twentieth century are those between the perspectives and strategies of synchronic and diachronic studies. The diachronic study focuses on the historical phenomena and evolution of language, which is the dynamic study equivalent to the linguistic study in history. The synchronic study gives priority to the study of the relationship among components of language phenomena in the same period, which is the static study equivalent to the regular study of non-historical phenomena in natural science. In short, the opposition between diachronic and synchronic studies is the one between process description and structure description.

8.1

The Relation Between Synchrony and Diachrony

8.1.1

Ferdinand de Saussure’s Views

8.1.1.1

The Second Bifurcation

“Linguistics here comes to its second bifurcation. We had first to choose between language and speaking; here we are again at the intersection of two roads, one leading to diachrony and the other to synchrony” (Saussure 1980: 141).

© Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_8

173

174

8.1.1.2

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

Synchronic Axis and Diachronic Axis

“Certainly all sciences would profit by indicating more precisely the co-ordinates along which their subject matter is aligned. Everywhere distinctions should be made according to the following illustration: (1) The axis of simultaneities (AB), which stands for the relations of coexisting things, and from which the intervention of time is excluded; C

B

A

D

(2) The axis of successions (CD), on which only one thing can be considered at a time, but upon which are located all the things on the first axis together with their changes. This distinction has to be heeded by linguists above all others, for language is a system of pure values. The more complex and rigorously organized a system of values is, the more it is necessary, because of its very complexity, to study it according to both co-ordinates.” (ibid: 118).

8.1.1.3

Synchronic Linguistics and Diachronic Linguistics

“The multiplicity of signs, which we have already used to explain the continuity of language, makes it absolutely impossible to study simultaneously relations in time and relations within the system.” “The reasons for distinguishing two sciences of language are clear. How should the sciences be designated?” “Evolution and evolutionary linguistics are more precise; in contrast, we can speak of the science of language-states [etats de langue] or static linguistics. But to indicate more clearly the opposition and crossing of two orders of phenomena that relate to the same object, I prefer to speak of synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Everything that relates to the static side of our science is synchronic; everything that has to do with evolution is diachronic. Similarly, synchrony and diachrony designate, respectively, a language-state and an evolutionary phase” (ibid: 119). To sum up, “synchronic

8.1 The Relation Between Synchrony and Diachrony

175

linguistics will be concerned with the logical and psychological relations that bind together coexisting terms and form a system in the collective mind of speakers. Diachronic linguistics, on the contrary, will study relations that bind together successive terms not perceived by the collective mind but substituted for each other without forming a system” (ibid: 143).

8.1.1.4

Differences Between the Two Kinds of Facts Illustrated by Comparison

(1) “To show both the autonomy and the interdependence of synchrony, we can compare the former to the projection of an object on a plane surface. Any projection depends directly on the nature of the object projected, yet differs from it—the object itself is a thing apart. Otherwise, there would not be a whole science of projections; considering the bodies themselves would suffice. In linguistics there is the same relationship between the historical facts and the language-state, which is like a projection of the facts at a particular moment. Our understanding of synchronic state does not necessarily come from the study of objects, that is, diachronic events” (ibid: 127). (2) “Similarly if the stem of a plant is cut transversely, a rather complicated design is formed by the cut surface; the design is simply one perspective of the longitudinal fibers, and we would be able to see them on making a second cut perpendicular to the first. Here again one perspective depends on the other; the longitudinal cut shows the fibers that constitute the plant, and the transversal cut shows their arrangement on a particular plane” (ibid: 127–128). (3) “But of all comparisons that might be imagined, the most fruitful is the one that might be drawn between the functioning of language and the game of chess.” “First, a state of the set of chessmen corresponds closely to a state of language. The respective value of the pieces depends on their position on the chessboard (the quality of the pieces has nothing to do with this—author’s note) just as each linguistic term derives its value from its opposition to all the other terms. In the second place, the system is always momentary; it varies from one position to the next. It is also true that values depend above all else on an unchangeable convention and that a set of rules that exist before a game begin and persist after each move. Rules that are agreed upon once and for all exist in language, too; they are the constant principles of semiology. Finally, to pass from one state of equilibrium to the next or—according to our terminology—from one synchrony to the next, only one chesspiece has to be moved; there is no general rummage” (ibid: 128–129).

176

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

8.1.1.5

Differences Between Synchrony and Diachrony

(1) Different angles The first thing which has an effect on studying linguistic facts is that the language user is unaware of their succession in time: He or she is dealing with a situation. Hence, the linguist who wishes to understand this state must rule out of consideration everything from which that state results and pay no attention to diachrony. Only by suppressing the past can he or she get the state of mind of language users. The intervention of history can only distort his or her judgment. It would be absurd to try to draw a panorama of the Alps as seen from a number of peaks in the Jura simultaneously. A panoramic view must be taken from just one viewpoint. The same is true of a language. One cannot describe it or establish its norms of usage except by taking up a position in relation to a given state. When a linguist follows the evolution of language, he is like the observer moving from one end of the Jura to the other in order to record changes in perspective (ibid: 120). (2) Different methods The methods also differ in two respects: • Different perspectives. “Synchrony has only one perspective—the perspective of language users; the whole method consists of collecting evidence from different perspectives. In order to determine to what extent something is a reality, it is necessary and also sufficient to find out to what extent it exists as far as the language users are concerned. Diachronic linguistics, however, needs to distinguish between two perspectives. One will be prospective, following the course of time, and the other retrospective, going in the opposite direction” (ibid: 131). • Different study objects. “A second difference derives from the different areas covered by the two disciplines. The object of synchronic study does not comprise everything which is simultaneous but is the set of facts corresponding to any particular language. In this sense, it will take into account where necessary a division into dialects and sub-dialects. On the contrary, the items diachronic linguistics deals with do not necessarily belong to a single language. It is precisely the succession of diachronic facts and their proliferation in space which gives rise to the diversity of languages” (ibid: 131).

8.1.2

Dialectical Views

8:1:2:1 In order to further the study of the language system and define its areas and objects, the classification into synchronic and diachronic language is necessary and correct as an effective method to describe the language

8.1 The Relation Between Synchrony and Diachrony

177

system. Descriptive linguistics became a reality only when Saussure put forward this division principle, which can be seen as a methodological innovation in the study of language. Before that, however, diachronic linguistics played a leading role in traditional linguistics in Europe. Without doubt, Saussure’s distinction between the two linguistic disciplines was considered as a revolution when linguistic study was dominated by historical-comparative linguistics. It has yet been unnecessarily overdone; that is to say, the distinction has been absolutized with excessive attention being paid to synchronic linguistics. 8:1:2:2 Saussure always emphasized the contrast between the two points of view—synchronic and diachronic—is absolute and admitted no compromise (ibid: 122). From the perspective of ontology, however, it is believed that evolution and changes are absolute while stability is relative. Language itself is something in the process of constant development. In fact, there are only synchronic descriptions, while differences between synchrony and diachrony do not exist, nor do contradictions between these two perspectives. We assume the presence of synchrony that ignores changes for the purposes of simplifying the study, and analyzing and describing the language system. From this point of view, synchrony can be regarded as not only the hypothesis of describing a language, but an angle and method of language study (i.e., from the perspective of methodology). 8:1:2:3 Modern linguistics in the nineteenth century regarded diachronic research as the only scientific research. After Saussure, however, the viewpoints and methods of diachrony were entirely rejected by modern linguistics. We believe that those are two extreme perspectives, and the proper point of view should be that synchronic and diachronic research complements one another. It is undeniable that language symbolic system is the product of long-term historical development. Without a good comprehension of history, the facts about modern times cannot be understood. Hence, it is necessary and useful to conduct synchronic study with diachronic viewpoints as language itself is always in the process of growth. The transformation of standards and rules reflects the development and changes of a language. 8:1:2:4 Saussure emphasized that diachronic linguistics will be concerned with connections between sequences of items not perceived by the same collective consciousness, and the changes of individual items and language units. We acknowledge that there are non-systematic reasons for changes, but it remains one-sided to regard diachronic changes absolutely as changes in individual language units. It not only denies the historical laws of language development, but ignores the dialectic relations between element alternation and system adjustment. We believe that the development of language is a rule-governed rather than haphazard process. The development and changes of an element tend to affect the regular changes of similar elements instead of the arbitrary ones of individual elements in

178

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

isolation. In other words, language units are part of the language system, and their changes can often cause variations of the system. 8:1:2:5 According to Saussure, there are two different laws in synchronic and diachronic relations that should be taken into account, namely the contrast between universality (oбщee) and compulsion (oбязaтeльнoe). Those two laws in synchronic relations are general, while in diachronic relations, they are imperative. Saussure’s views were closely related to the thoughts of Emile Durkheim (1858– 1917), a French positivist sociologist and founder of French sociology. The latter, in Sociological Methodology (1899), discussed his views on the nature of social phenomena: “He denies the existence of the objective world, and believes what exist objectively (excluding the individual) are only ‘social facts’ (coциaльный фaкт) and ‘group consciousness’ (кoллeктивнoe coзнaниe), referring to religious belief, customs, methods of thought, ways of behavior, language, etc. Group consciousness plays a decisive role in society and has mandatory effect on individuals. It emphasizes that society is an objective entity beyond the individual, and all social facts are mandatory, forcing individuals to obey those facts and restraining their behavior.” According to Emile Durkheim, all social laws must conform to the two principles of compulsion and universality; while in Saussure’s view, the power of synchrony is often universal and can never be compulsory. Diachronic forces, on the contrary, are often imperative and absolutely not universal. From this point of view, we may come to the conclusion that neither of these two forces can be regarded as laws, for both of them cannot be universal and compulsory at the same time. 8:1:2:6 When studying the law of language changes, we should also differentiate between rules of functional changes and laws of historical changes of language units. The understanding of function is quite different. Here, it refers to the function that constitutes a coherent discourse (or speech chain) and a language unit at the upper level. Language system is composed of constant units, which must be combined with other elements to form a higher level of speech units and adopt a variant form when performing their functions. Therefore, every individual will embody many characteristics of their own in the specific context when using variants, which means two completely identical utterances never exist and the performing of function itself implies changes. Functional change of a language unit is the change in the same functional language unit when performing its function in the synchronic range. It also refers to the change from a constant language unit to several coexisting variants (or temporarily changing into another unit conditionally), such as the functional change of the word meaning (red—scarlet, crimson, pink, vermilion; morning—daybreak, dawn, twilight and sunrise). In addition, functional changes can be best explained by assimilation and dissimilation rules in phonology, morphological changes in

8.1 The Relation Between Synchrony and Diachrony

179

word formation, and the choice of different sentences and grammatical forms in the construction of coherent discourse. Historical change of a language unit refers to the change of a material language unit in the course of historical development. It may undergo partial changes in phonetics, meaning and function, and it may transform into another language unit or even disappear. The result of the change is that one language unit is replaced by another rather than coexisting. From this point of view, functional change generally occurs in the same period, which is a kind of synchronic change. Its typical characteristics are that several forms coexist, perform different functions and constitute the unity of history. Historical change, however, generally occurring in different historical periods, is a sort of diachronic change. The typical characteristics are that one form is replaced by another, performing the same function, and constituting the unity of function. Descriptive and historical methods, termed as synchronic and diachronic methods, are two major ways to study language. These two methods, however, cannot be entirely separated, and they being discussed separately are mainly for the purpose of convenience. “The traditional way of transmitting language is simply same as the process of teaching children to speak” (Silverstein 1971: 39). Elder and younger language users live together and exchange ideas, making the past and future meet at present. Synchronic state is a plane portrait, which projects three-dimensional changes to the plane and stops time from moving. We cannot see the changes taking place around us for the shortness of time. No matter how long life is, it is a mere moment. Changes are rarely observed. Furthermore, we can ignore those changes and still get to know each other (Bao 1993: 575).

8.2 8.2.1

Synchronic Approaches to Linguistic Signs The Importance of Synchrony

The Neo-grammarians’ main theoretical work is Principles of the History of Language (1880) by Herman Paul. He said, “The only scientific approach to language is the historical one” and added, “What is declared to be a non-historical and yet scientific view of language is in essence nothing but an imperfectly historical one. The flawed and incomplete character of this view is in part the fault of the observer, and in part attributable to the nature of the data under observation.” It can be seen that the historical-comparative approach then dominated linguistics, which was obviously an extreme trend. Saussure, therefore, was determined to delimit and define the boundaries of language study. To this end, he pointed out the differences between synchronic linguistics and diachronic linguistics and emphasized that the former was more important in theory and method. He said, “It is clear that the synchronic point of view takes precedence over the diachronic, since for the community of language users that is the one and only reality.

180

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

The same is true for the linguist. If he takes a diachronic point of views, he is no longer examining the language, but a series of events which modify it” (Saussure 1980: 130). From this point of view, he was not only to change the methodology of the linguistic research, but to make a Copernicus revolution in linguistics. Why is synchrony important? We might as well discuss it from the following aspects.

8.2.1.1

The Synchrony of Linguistic Signs Is a Scientific Abstraction

All scientific (correct, serious not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely. Synchronic perspective makes a horizontal cut of language, observing language from a static point of view while disregarding changes of little importance, just as mathematicians round numbers off to three decimal places when calculating.

8.2.1.2

The Synchrony of Language Is the Cornerstone of the Existing Value of Linguistic Elements

For speakers, the most fundamental thing is to grasp the existing value of linguistic elements—the synchronic characteristics of the forms and contents—without tracing back to their roots. Although it is necessary to study the language diachronically, the intervention of history will add unnecessary burden to those who learn and use the language since synchrony is the true reality to the community of speakers. Furthermore, the primary function of language is to communicate. When learning a language, people take it as a basic tool and accept its present form. At this point, linguistic elements, systems and their relationship should be placed first. Other factors such as historical changes are insignificant for speakers. For example, when people learn the singular and plural forms of English words such as foot-feet and goose-geese, they only need to remember and distinguish them. The original forms and evolution of these words, (fōt>fōti!fēti!fēt; gōs>gōsi!gēsi!gōs), however, are irrelevant to communication. Take another example, “They sit on a sofa (Mongolian) in a lane (English) while eating grapes (Persian) and drinking coffee (English)”—for those who speak modern Chinese, the important thing about this sentence is to understand the grammatical relation rather than the source of these words (indicated in bracket is the source language).

8.2.1.3

Process Cannot Replace System

Although diachronic study focuses on process, it should be noted that this process is not equivalent to the diachronic study of language. The history of a word, for example, often cannot explain the existing meaning of the word, because apart from historical factors, it is concerned with a system, which is composed of elements that

8.2 Synchronic Approaches to Linguistic Signs

181

mutually complement each other. The equilibrium of elements is regulated by the synchrony of language at first. In fact, the basic relations that play a role in language are the corresponding relation and dependent relation between signs and meanings, and the broad basis of these relations is the synchronic system.

8.2.1.4

Diachronic Facts Are not Directed Toward Changing the System

Never is the system modified directly. In itself the system is unchangeable; only certain elements are altered without regard for the solidarity that binds them with the whole. It is as if one of the planets that revolve around the sun changes its dimensions and weight, but it does not change the planetary system itself. Still take singular and plural as an example, as dual number in Russian disappeared, some of the dual suffixes have turned into plural (дoктopa/doctor, пpoфeccopa/professor, гopoдa/city, диpeктopa/factor manager, дoмa/house, yчитeля/teacher, тoпoля/ aspen) and even gradually eliminate such fixed forms as –ы and -и, which, however, are still considered to be the changes of certain elements and these changes would never appear in the system. According to Saussure, “Since changes never affect the system as a whole but rather one or another of its element, they can be studied only outside the system” (Saussure 1980: 127).

8.2.1.5

The Perspective of Synchronic Research Is Holistic

Synchronic study can often involve all elements and their interrelations when it comes to descriptive language system, which is not the case with diachronic study. It is blind and one-sided to study the elements outside the system and it eventually will not succeed.

8.2.1.6

Language Change Can Only Originate in Parole

Parole change, repeated many times and accepted by a community, becomes a fact of language. Parole itself, however, is an instant phenomenon and does not evolve. In other words, diachrony is lack of universality. In short, ever since modern linguistics came into existence, most linguists have been absorbed in diachrony. Such is the tendency introduced by Franz Bopp. Although states intervened now and then, they are irregular and piecemeal. “Linguistics, having accorded too large a place to history, will turn back to the static viewpoint of traditional grammar but in a new spirit and with other procedures and the historical method will have contributed to this rejuvenation; the historical method will in turn give a better understanding of language-states” (Saussure 1980: 121).

182

8.2.2

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

Panchrony of Linguistic Signs

Panchrony, in fact, has nothing to do with the development of language. It is similar to the synchronic perspective, observing the mutual restriction of all elements regardless of time. However, since panchrony reflects some axioms adapted to all similar phenomena, it indicates and predicts the general trend of language development. Up to now, the study of panchrony has not yet attracted people’s attention and the existing views on it are still scattered and unsystematic. According to the Former Soviet linguist Suprun’s summary from Course in General Linguistics, we list some scholars’ views to give a brief introduction to panchrony (Suprun 1983). Yevgeny Dmitrievich Polivanov believed that a language in which almost every word consists of a single morpheme has no inflectional affixes, for example, some isolating languages like Chinese and Vietnamese fall into this category. Xoкнeт, Ч. pointed out that the more phonemes in a language, the shorter the average length of morphemes will be. There are many sounds people can pronounce, but the number of phonemes that make up the phonetic system of a language is limited. The average number of phonemes of each language is 35. Hawaiian has only 13 phonemes (its morpheme length is longer than that of other languages), while a language in North Caucasus has 84 phonemes (it is said that the morphemes of this language are generally shorter than those of other languages). Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov concluded through researches that if there are monosyllabic roots in a language, the number of phonemes must exceed 40. Joseph Greenberg’s thoughts can be summed up as follows: In a language where the subject can be placed after the verb, while the object, before the verb, it must have the case category. Russian is the most typical since its basic marker of grammatical relations is morphology, rather than the word order. For example, in the sentence, Taня yбилa Maшy (Tania killed Martha), no matter how the word order is changed, it does not affect the distribution of grammatical relations and semantic roles (theoretically, there are six arrangements of word order in this sentence, each of which is grammatically right in Russian). (1) Taня yбилa Maшy. (2) Taня Maшy yбилa. (3) Maшy yбилaTaня. (4) Maшy Taня yбилa. (5) Убилa Taня Maшy. (6) Убилa Maшy Taня. From above, we can see that Russian has an extensive case system. Although English also has case category and there are distinctions between the subjective and objective cases of most pronouns, for example, “I saw him”; “He saw me,” the role of morphological case markers is limited, which cannot make the word order relatively free: * he saw I *and * me saw he* are rarely seen in modern English. From this point of view, languages with more word order freedom have more case marking. As the case decreases or disappears, the word order will play a bigger part in sentences. The conclusion of Yuri Vladimir Rozhdestvensky is more universal: If a language in which positions of subjects and objects are freely alterable, its verb must

8.2 Synchronic Approaches to Linguistic Signs

183

have prefixes or suffixes. This feature can be found in most languages, and it is more prominent in the Indo-European language system. Chinese linguist Gao Mingkai also pointed out in Introduction to Linguistics: “In a word or sentence, a sound may change, either by its neighboring sounds or its position.” For example, the initial consonant [*k-] in Old Chinese, affected by its following sounds [*-i, -i-, -j-, -jw-], becomes [tc-] in modern Mandarin. This can also be seen in the history of French. The [k-] before the highest front vowel [i] changes into [s-] instead of [tc-], such as “civil” [sivil] (domestic) and “cil” [sil] (eyelash), where the letter “c” was originally pronounced as [k] but as [s] now. The last sound of words tends to weaken or even disappear in the course of development because of their positions, which is also a historical sound change (Gao and Shi 1963).

8.3

Diachronic Approaches to Linguistic Signs

Saussure divided language study into two parts: synchronic study and diachronic study, and to some degree the latter plays a more important role. In this sense, we put the focus on synchronic linguistics in the previous chapters. Now we will discuss the diachronic study of language, that is, to study language in the context of time and examine the language system from two aspects: diachronic variability and dynamic perspective.

8.3.1

Evolution as a Universal Feature of Linguistic Signs

8.3.1.1

Duality of Linguistic Signs

Language as a sign is quite stable since it is conventional in society. It is natural that people could not sense the changes when using the language (a 7-year-old girl could have an intimate conversation with an 80-year-old grandpa). Because language is people’s communicative tool in society where sociality requires that language cannot change dramatically in a short period of time or its mission could not be fulfilled, and the vital role of language would not be played either. The stability of language, on the other hand, doesn’t deny its development. Any language would change with time passing by, and this kind of change is very slow, progressive, and unperceivable by people. It needs a very long period of time if dramatic change is going to happen in a certain language. For the languages recorded in ancient texts, if literature written several hundred or thousand years ago is compared with today’s language, there would be a very sharp contrast between them.

184

8.3.1.2

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

Language as a Developing Social Phenomenon

Heraclitus (about 540–480 BC), philosopher in ancient Greece, once said, “Everything changes and nothing remains still.” Dialectical materialism tells us that, everything in this world has a process of development. Everything is changing, so is language. Language is a social phenomenon in development. Take Chinese as an example: There are 10 completely voiced initial consonants in ancient Chinese syllables, which have disappeared in modern Chinese (the so-called completely voiced consonants refer to the voiced plosive, fricative and affricate, like the consonants [b], [g], [v], [z] and [dz] in the international phonetic system). The change is more remarkable in the lexical aspect. Some old words have disappeared and some new words have been created, for example, a line in the Chinese classic Analects of Confucius Xue Er goes, “学而时习之, 不亦说乎? (Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?)” in which the characters “说” and “悦” share the same pronunciation (yue) in ancient Chinese, so they are referred as the same. But nowadays the pronunciations of these two Chinese characters are different, and it would be wrong if they are used without distinguishing them. For another example, “谁 (shui, meaning who)” in modern Chinese generally refers to a person, e.g., “Who are you looking for?” and “Who does not praise his hometown?” But in ancient Chinese, “shei” could also refer to things, e.g., it refers to an animal. Mozi, a Chinese philosopher during the early Warring States Period (475– 221 BC), said, “I will go to the Taihang Mountain by riding a good horse or sheep, and who will you choose?” Gengzhuzi, a student of Mozi, replied, “I’ll ride a good horse” (MoziGengzhu); “shei” also refers to Heaven: “Who brings the disaster to person? It’s Heaven” (MoziTianzhi). There is also an obvious change about grammar, e.g., in the literature works of the Pre-Qin Dynasty (600–470 BC), we can see that a pronoun functioning as an object is put at the beginning of a negative sentence or an interrogative sentence, e.g., in Analects of ConfuciusZi Han, “吾谁欺?欺天乎 (Who do you cheat? The Heaven?”); in Analects of ConfuciusXianjin, “不吾知也。(I don’t know)”. In these examples, “谁” (shui) and “吾” (wu, meaning I) are put before the transitive verb, but there is no longer such form in modern Chinese. There also exist various differences in Russian in ancient and modern times. In terms of the phonological system, first, the main difference is that the number of vowels in ancient Russian is larger than those in modern Russian. There are a total of 11 vowels including long, short and super-short vowels; while there are only six vowels and no super-short vowels in modern Russian. Second, compared with the 36 consonants in modern Russian, there are fewer ones in ancient Russian, no sound of ф [f] and no established hard and soft corresponding systems. Third, characteristics of the syllable structure are different. Under the influence of the common Slavic language, the syllable structure in ancient Russian is governed by the “rules of harmonic syllable” and “rules of open syllable.” We can also easily find examples of changes in English, e.g., nouns in the original Indo-European language have grammatical categories of gender, number

8.3 Diachronic Approaches to Linguistic Signs

185

and case, but after the historical evolution, all features disappear except the difference between singular and plural forms in modern English. Take English words as another example. English has a lot of borrowed words from other languages. Statistics show that borrowed words take about three-fifths of the 20,000 commonly used English words. This situation is inseparable from the historical development of English. English was originated from three Western Germanic languages spoken by Anglo-Saxons and Jutes, who moved from the European continent to the British Isles in about the fifth century. During the ninth and tenth centuries, some Scandinavians in the North (mainly Danes) invaded the British Isles and settled down, and the Scandinavian spoken by those invaders belonged to North Germanic language. Then they abandoned their language, but a host of Scandinavian loanwords remained in English, including personal pronouns such as they, their, them, and many other words that begin with [sk], such as scare, scrape, skin and sky. In the middle of the eleventh century, French-speaking Normans conquered the British Isles. The Normans ruled the area for three centuries. During that period, the British used French in all aspects of political, economic and cultural affairs. The ruled used their English only at home, in churches or village bazaars. At the same time, a large number of French loanwords poured into English, for example, nation, religion, government, crown, court, value, prince, judge, state, money, parliament, society, etc. The evolution of word meaning is another manifestation of vocabulary evolution. There are three major situations: (1) Expansion. Originally, “Dog” referred to a specific breed of dog while it refers to all dog breeds today. “Bird” referred to squabs while it refers to birds of any age now. The verb “arrive” meant “pull into shore” while now it means “get to somewhere, whether by boat, car or plane.” The Chinese characters “jiang” and “he” were originally used to refer to the Yangtze River and the Yellow River while they refer to all rivers today. “Hong” originally referred to light red, and the dark red in ancient Chinese was called “zhu” or “chi,” but today, “hong” refers to both light red and dark red. (2) Reduction. The original meaning of “deer” is equivalent to today’s “beast” or “animal” while it refers to only one kind of animal–deer today. “Hound” referred to all kinds of dog while it refers to a specific breed of dog today. In the seventeenth century, the word “meat,” equivalent to “food,” referred to all kinds of food, while today it only refers to the meat of the slaughtered animal. The Chinese character “tang” referred to all hot water, and the original meaning of “tang” can be read from the idiom “fu tang dao huo” (“going through fire and water”) while today it refers to a kind of cooked fluid food. “Chou” in ancient times referred to all kinds of smells; for example, in I Ching∙Xici, it is used to describe the smell of orchid. But today “chou” refers to a very unpleasant smell. (3) Transfer. Originally, “pen” referred to feather. In ancient times, people used feather rod as a writing tool; hence, it got the meaning of “pen.” “Silly,” the original meaning of which was equivalent to “happy,” evolved into the meaning of “naive” and then turned into the meaning of “foolish.” There are

186

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

lots of examples in Chinese: In ancient China, there were no seats for sitting; thus, the way to sit was different compared with the ways today. In ancient society, people often let their knees touch the ground and sat on their shins. It looks like kneeling on the ground. Then when chairs and stools were introduced to China, the way to “sit” was changed. People let their bottom touch the ground or the chair and the stool, which led to the change of the meaning of “sit.” Zhan Guo Ce, a classic book in China, described Wu Zixu (a general and politician of the Wu Kingdom in the Spring and Autumn Period (722–481 BC) “kneeling on the ground and begging on the street of the Wu”—the way to “sit” in ancient China.

8.3.2

Factors Underlying the Evolution of Language

In the past, linguistic writings concentrated more on the evolution of language rather than on the factors underlying the evolution. Now, the factors can be summed up in two aspects: One is external; the other is internal.

8.3.2.1

External Factors

(1) Social factor Language is the most important communicative tool for human beings. When language is used, it can continue to exist; when language is not used anymore, it becomes dead language. If there are no words to record language, then it may disappear. It is safe to say that a dead language cannot evolve. The living language is one of the foundations that help people become part of the society, and it is also a crucial bond that connects social members. Therefore, this kind of language has a close connection with social development. The evolution of society, from lower to higher stages, from simple to complex levels and from elementary to advanced phases, often pushes forward the development of language; the division, unity and communication of society accordingly cause the division, unity and integration of language. Accordingly, language and its laws of development can be understood only if it is studied in close connection with the history of society, and with the history of the people who create and use the language (Ye and Xu 1981: 186). For instance, the word “abdication” in English has the meaning of “formally relinquish monarchical authority.” But in Britain, the word “abdication” can in particular indicate the event that in 1936 King Edward VIII abdicated the throne in order to marry Wallis Simpson, an American socialite who had divorced her second husband. Moreover, the phrase “Accession Day” had no special meaning but now British people use this phrase to specially indicate Queen Elizabeth II’s Accession

8.3 Diachronic Approaches to Linguistic Signs

187

on February 6, 1952. Every year on this day government departments raises a British flag to celebrate the Accession. With the development of society, many new things and concepts have emerged in rapid succession, and people’s mind has become more and more meticulous and complicated—all this will help set new requirements for communication, thus constantly enriching the vocabulary and grammar of language. The history of vocabulary can be regarded as a mirror of society for its evolution directly reflects the social development and changes. When a new thing appears, a new word for its name will arise; when an old thing disappears, the old word for its name will also disappear and no longer be used by people. In Chinese, for example, the term “fenglu” (“payment to officials in China’s feudal society”), which includes “fengmi” (“food”) and “fengyin” (“silver ingot”), was successively replaced by “xinshui” (“salary”) and “gongzi” (“wage”) with the demise of the Chinese feudalism; some terms that reflect the hierarchy system in China’s feudal society, like “shuren” (“the common people”), “guaren” or “zhen” (two terms for ancient Chinese emperors to call themselves) and “fei” (a word of endearment for ancient Chinese emperors to call their concubines) were discarded with the demise of the system. Moreover, there are many new modern Chinese expressions that are not seen in ancient Chinese literature, such as “yuzhou feichuan” (“spacecraft”), “dianhua” (“telephone”), “dianshi” (“television”), “diannao” (“computer”), “CD ji” (“CD player”) and “MP3 bofangqi” (“MP3 player”). More examples can also be seen in Russian. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, dramatic changes have been witnessed in the life of Russian people. In fields like politics, economics and culture, numerous new words appear, some old terms revive and several seldom-used negative expressions are activated, e.g., CHГ/the Commonwealth of the Independent States (CIS), Peфepeндyм/referendum, aдминиcтpaция/administrative office, бизнec/business, coбcтвeнник/individual operator, кoнкypeнция/ competition, тpиллиoн/trillion, paзвлeкaтeльныйцeнтp/recreation center, игopныйдoм/casino, фaнaты/groupie, кoнкypcкpacoты/beauty pageant and чeлoвeкгoдa/person of the year. The connection, communication and contact between different communities will also inevitably promote the development of language, e.g., the phenomenon of borrowing caused by contact. Borrowing is not limited to vocabulary, and it can also cause some phonetic changes in language. There are numerous English borrowings from French, which results in the absorption of two French phonemes—[v] and [з], which are absent in English. Moreover, the borrowing of morphological affixes is also common, e.g., the noun suffixes “-action” and “-ment” and prefixes “sub-” and “re-” in English all derive from Romance. Such examples are abundant in Russian, and there has appeared a large number of Russian borrowings from English in recent years, such as ньюcмeйкep/newsmaker, бecтceллep/bestseller, xит/hit, пpaйм-тaйм/prime-time, Poк-и-poл/rock-and-roll and мeлoмaн/fancier. During the Northern and Southern Dynasties period (420–589), the ethnic minorities in northern China resettled in Central China, and the former rulers of the northern China relocated to southern China. Such social unrest brought about great changes to the then Chinese language, as is shown in The Family Instructions of

188

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

Master Yan by the then renowned Chinese scholar and educationist Yan Zhitui (531–591), “the language of southern China has been influenced by that of Central China, and the dialects of northern China has mingled with that of the minorities.” (2) Religious factor Religion also belongs to the category of social phenomena, but considering the great influence of religion on the evolution of language, we would like to discuss it specifically. Religion is a complex concept. The religion mentioned here refers to the classic one with a strict system such as Buddhism and Christianity rather than the primitive one with the nature of witchcraft. Peng Zerun and Li Baojia argued, “If a language is closely related to a religion, or most users of a specific language believe in the same religion, then the language is supported by religion. Under the premise that the conditions for the evolution of other languages are roughly the same, whether a language has religious support or not, its evolution form and result are different. This is because religion plays an important role in human’s spiritual life” (Peng and Li 2000: 351). • Languages with religious support are relatively stable. For example, among the minority languages in China, Tibetan, Mongolian and Uighur, supported by religion, are less influenced by Chinese while without religious support, languages of Zhuang, Bai, Dong, Miao and Qiang are influenced a lot by Chinese. Tibetan and Mongolian have borrowed some new words from Chinese. However, in addition to borrowing new Chinese words, Zhuang and Qiang languages’ speech structure and grammar rules change under the influence of Chinese. Influenced by Chinese, the phoneme/f/and complex vowels in Qiang language have appeared. At the same time, the word order of Qiang language has also evolved from the original “central word + modifiers” to “modifiers + central word.” • Languages with religious support are highly independent and tend to resist substitution in evolution. Judging from many language substitutions that have taken place in Chinese history, we can find that almost all minority languages that are in close contact with Chinese (e.g., the languages of the Xiongnu, Xianbei, Qidan, Jurchen, Manchu and other ethnic groups) have been replaced by it, and these languages have no religious support. Mongolian has not been replaced by Chinese in that Mongolian is a nation that believes in Buddhism. • Languages with religious support often have tenacious vitality. The Jewish Hebrew expression “survival after death” is a typical example. This miracle in the history of world language shows that apart from factors such as politics and national consciousness, religion is a very important factor. First of all, Christianity, as the most influential religion in the world, is written in Hebrew on the basis of Jewish people’s inheritance of The Old Testament and part of the doctrine. Therefore, as a religious term, Hebrew has a lofty position. Secondly, during more than 1700 years’ disappearance of Hebrew colloquialism, the Hebrew written language has always been there, and the documents written in

8.3 Diachronic Approaches to Linguistic Signs

189

Hebrew, mainly religious books, are still coming out. At the same time, the Hebrew religious terminology and vocabulary have not only become common words among Christians all over the world, but have also been reserved in other languages, for example, “Amen (hearted wishes),” “Jehoveh (God)” and so on. • Generally, languages with religious support are equipped with words. The 11 ethnic groups in southwest China’s Yunnan Province use 22 kinds of written languages, and 20 of them are closely related to religion. Besides, people who master the languages are mainly religious personnel. (3) Physical and psychological factors In order to explain such phenomena as simplification and assimilation, linguists have put forward “labor-saving theory” or “economy principle,” and all these are for the sake of labor-saving or economy in pronunciation. Another change also related to the principle of least effort is called generalization, which is applied to restore the form of the words destroyed as a result of sound changes in the process of language evolution. For instance, in English the plural form of the noun “cow” was “kine” and the past tense of the verb “help” was “holp,” which are incompatible with the plural form of nouns (e.g., head-heads and cat-cats) and the past tense forms of verbs (e.g., play-played and hope-hoped). Thereupon, people modified the rare cases and followed general rules (e.g., cow-cows and help-helped)—that is called generalization. Generalization eliminates a few exceptions, promotes memory and the use of language and thus can be considered a manifestation of the principle of least effort or the economy principle from the perspective of psychology rather than physiology. Synaesthesia is more often than not involved when psychological factors are mentioned. There are five senses—sight, sound, touch, taste and smell—and five sense organs—eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body which can get mixed up or confused in our daily experience. Certain colors may be perceived as temperature; sound may produce images; heat and cold may have weight; odors may be “sharp.” Something like that is common to be seen in plain language in that synaesthesia produces certain changes in the meanings of linguistic signs. For instance, in Chinese we use the term “guangliang” to express something shining and bright while the term “xingliang” to show a heavy sound, in which the character “liang” (bright) is perceived as sound as if we made no distinction between sight and sound at this point. Also, in the Chinese term “renao” (bustling) and “lengjing” (calm), the words “re” (hot) and “leng” (cold), together with “nao” (noisy) and “jing” (silent) can trigger touch and sound, respectively. Take another example: In the famous line “On the apricot blossoms, the spirit of spring has burst forth a glorious sight” from the poem The Apricot Blossoms written by Song Qi (998–1061), a renowned poet of the Song Dynasty (960–1279), the word “burst” shows readers a dynamic picture where apricot blossoms flourish with sight perceived as sound, so as to highlight the apricots in full blossom. That sight and touch are perceived as sound is the most noticeable among all the phenomena of synaesthesia. Aristotle said in his psychological works that sound can either be sharp or heavy, which draws an analogy from the sense of touch in

190

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

that sight and touch are similar to some degree. There is a beautiful article in the Records of Music of The Book of Rites, an ancient Chinese classic, that combines sound and sight perfectly—“To sing in a sonorous voice seems like holding a heavy thing, in a deep voice like a thing falling, in a sweet voice like transition and ceases like a withered tree. A straight and bend song is a rectangle while a sweet song is a circle, like a string of pearls.” “The voice touches listeners and makes them associate it with such shapes,” Kong Yingda (574–648), a Chinese ancient scholar, explained. Hearing a sound and analogizing a certain shape is a rhetorical device described in the Records of Music. There are also many types of synaesthesia in Western poetry such as Homer’s poem that makes all translators scratch their heads and put down their pens: “Like unto cicalas that in a forest sit upon a tree and pour porth their lily-like voice,” and John Don’s poem: “A loud perfume … cryed/even at the father’s nose.” St. Martin said, “I heard flowers that sounded and notes that shone.” In addition, many collocations in English and Russian also apply synaesthesia. English—warm (cold) color, soft (rough) voice, sweet scent, and peppery speech; Russian—мягкaя мyзыкa/soft music, cepeбpянный гoлoc/crisp voice, xoлoднoe пиcьмo/cold letter, гopькaя пpaвдa(иcтинa)/agonizing truth, etc. People who advocate psychological reasons also believe that language standardization is unbreakable. Remembering the rules can help our brain process a lot of language knowledge without getting too nervous. If the changes are chaotic, norms will be broken. The brain is unable to cope with a lot of language materials, and then the communicative function of language will be impaired. So when an accidental (and possibly a social) factor brings a change in language, a series of adjustments will be made to remedy the broken norms. The chain reaction of language change is an interesting phenomenon led by such reasons, which shows that some changes of language are mutually motivated and are the result of adjustment to maintain normalization. For example, in the Chaucer English, lyf (equivalent to today’s “life”) is pronounced [li:f] (like today’s “leaf”), indicating that today’s vowel [i:] has become [ei] and then [ai]. This is not an isolated change, for all the long vowels have changed at the same time: [e:] ! [i:], [e:] ! [e:], [a:] ! [e:]. These changes seem to follow one after another, filling the gap in the altered vowel (Aitcheson 1986: 163). There is, of course, much debate about the true mechanisms of language interaction. The change is not isolated, and the reason for it is to maintain the norms of human language.

8.3.2.2

Internal Factors

Materialist dialectics holds that external reasons are the condition of change while internal reasons are the basis of change, and external reasons work by means of internal reasons. Neither social development, religious influence, nor physical or psychological reasons are the most direct ones of language development, but the internal contradiction of the language structure system is the internal reasons of language development, which determines the direction of language development.

8.3 Diachronic Approaches to Linguistic Signs

191

As for internal reasons of language development, the Chinese and foreign scholars have similar understanding. With reference to ideas of Peng Zerun, Li Baojia, Suprun and other scholars, we can induce the following contradictions which constrain the development of language: (1) Contradictions between form and content There is not a necessary connection between sound and meaning of linguistic signs, but an arbitrary relationship. There is no absolute symmetry between form and content (or signifier and signified), in other words, the arbitrariness of the combination of form (sound) and content (meaning) of language determines the possibility of change in linguistic signs. This arbitrariness determines the eternal contradiction between form and content of language components, and it is precisely because of the asymmetric duality of signs that the language system can develop continuously. • Form remains the same, but content changes: (1) 衷(zhong): Close-fitting underwear ! inner heart ! kindness; (2) 踵(zhong): Heel ! arrive, walk ! follow ! inherit; (3) 镇(zhen): Press ! suppress ! guard ! settle ! town. In addition, language change can also be found in the conversion relationship between notional words and function words. Function words are created in the course of grammaticalization and differentiation of notional words. For example, the Chinese words “了” (le), “着” (zhe), “第” (di), “老” (lao), “儿” (er), “头” (tou), etc., are derived from differentiation of notional words. The result of the evolution of these lexical components has produced changes not only in the vocabulary system, but also in the Chinese grammar: The emergence of “了” and “着” makes Chinese verbs have the aspect; suffixes such as “第,” “老,” “儿” and “头” have greatly enriched the Chinese word formation. • Similarity in content and change in form (1) Ordinary warriors -兵 (soldiers), 卒 (pawns), 士(guards); (2) The so-called soul after death by superstitious people -鬼(ghosts),域 (demons), 魔(devils); (3) High mountains -岭(ridge), 冈(hillock), 山(mountain), 峰(peak). Some more examples: 德律风-电话(telephone), 洋火-火柴 (match), 洋车-单车自行车(bicycle), 驿-站(station)… The suffix “们(men)” is a major change in language. The singular and plural forms of personal pronouns were the same in ancient times. After the Han Dynasty (202 BC–220 AD), vocabulary components such as “属” (shu), “曹” (cao), “等” (deng), “辈” (bei) were used to represent the plural. Around the tenth to eleventh centuries, the suffix “们” (men) appeared. It not only added a grammatical component, but also changed the grammatical system and the vocabulary. Personal pronouns have plural forms such as “我们(women—we),” “你们(nimen—you)”

192

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

and “他们(tamen—they).” The suffix “们” can also be added to a noun referring to a group of people, such as “同学们 (tongxuemen—classmates),” “朋友们(pengyoumen—friends).” (2) Contradictions personality

between

conveying

information

and

performing

Recognized pronunciation, standard variations and normative forms are regulated by language. In order to accurately convey information, people apply and consolidate these norms unconsciously. The plain language, however, cannot satisfy people’s desire for expressing the characteristics of things. For example, the semantic figure (a figure of speech that replaces the name of a thing with the name of something else) is a common way for people to enhance the expression of language. It brings about the development of language. (1) Epithet (эпитeт)—Attributive or adverbial with artistic image. Жeлeзнaя вoля (iron will); зoлoтaя oceнь (golden autumn); Жypчит pyчeй вeceлo. (The brook is brightly murmuring.); (2) Metaphor (мeтaфopa)—An implied comparison between two dissimilar things that have something in common. Cнeжнoe мope (sea of snow); гpoм aплoдиcмeнтoв (thunderous applause); Зa oкнoм кипeлa вecнa. (spring outside the window); (3) Metonymy (мeтoнимия)—A figure of speech in a word or phrase is substituted for another with which it’s closely associated. Бeлый дoм (referring to the organization by the name of location); Mимo Дyняшки шли кeпки и кocынки, шинeль и cпeцoвки, шapфы и шapфики. (Dunya Schka is passed by people in caps and triangular scarves, wearing military coats and overalls, or in bandannas and scarves.—Referring to wearers by objects and decorations); Шyтилa зpeлocть, пeлa юнocть. (Adults are talking and laughing, and young people are singing.—Referring to the characteristic owner by the name of features.); (4) Personification (oлицeтвopeниe)—A figure of speech in which an inanimate object or abstraction is endowed with human qualities or abilities. Tиxo дpeмaeт peкa. (The river is dozing quietly.); И звeздa c звeздoю гoвopит. (Even the stars are talking to each other.); (5) Irony (иpoния). The use of words to convey the opposite of their literal meaning—Mнoгo ты пoнимaeшь! (Youknowalot!) Oxoтa мнe бoлтaть c тoбoй! (I’m interested in chatting with you!); (6) Allegory (aллeгopия)—Using specific images to express a certain concept. Лиca (an implication for a crafty person); ocёл (an implication for a silly and stubborn person); (7) Periphrase (пepифpaзa)—Substituting the original name of the thing with a descriptive name. Цapь звepeй—лeв (the king of beasts—lion); кopaбль пycтынки—вepблюд (boat in the desert—camel); гoлyбoй экpaн―тeлeвидeниe (blue screen—TV);

8.3 Diachronic Approaches to Linguistic Signs

193

(8) Hyperbole (гипepбoлa)—A figure of speech that uses extreme exaggeration to make a point or show emphasis. Cтo paз cлышaл! (I’ve heard it a hundred times!) Haпyгaл дo cмepти! (It scared me to death!). (3) Contradiction between old and new components All components in each language subsystem are interdependent and mutually constrained. When old components give way to new ones, the relationship between related components in the system will be re-adjusted. There are three forms of the third-person pronoun in medieval Chinese—“伊 (yi), 渠 (qu) and 他 (ta).” “伊” began to be widely used around the Eastern Jin Dynasty (317–420) and continued to be used in the Tang Dynasty (618–907). “渠” began to be used in the Western Jin Dynasty (266–420) and became widespread in the Tang Dynasty. “他” was used as personal pronoun from the Tang Dynasty. Before that, it was used as an indefinite pronoun, with the meaning of “other,” such as “王顾左右而言他.” (Qi Xuanwang turned the subject to other things.) “伊” and “渠” were commonly used from the Six Dynasties (222–589) to the Tang Dynasty. Since “他” referred to the third person, it gradually replaced “伊” and “渠.” In the Song Dynasty (960–1279), “他” became more common in spoken language, while “伊” and “渠” were quite rare. In modern times, “伊” and “渠” remain in use in some southern dialects, but has disappeared in Mandarin, in which only “他” is being used. (4) Contradictions between the possibility of system and the conventionality of habits In language, the possibility of language system is often more influential than the conventionality of habits. For example, the Russian verb климaтизиpoвaтьcя (adapt to climate) can theoretically constitute its imperative form климaтизиpyйcя, and the first person form of the verb пoбeдить (victory) should be пoбeжy, but this is not the case in real life (климaтизиpyйcя has never been used, and пoбeжy has been replaced by oдepжy пoбeдy, дoбьюcь пoбeды and пoпытaюcь пoбeдить, etc.). This fully shows that language conventions do not often comply with the system (e.g., “Pyccкиe нe тaк гoвopят”—“It is not expressed this way in Russion” is often used in Russian, but it is contradictory to the system.) Generally speaking, language system plays an important role in speaking or learning a foreign language for children. For example, they often use “goed” instead of went (the past tense of “go”), “seed” but not “saw” (the past tense of “see”), and “foots” instead of “feet” (the plural of “foot”), and would rather say Haмaзaю, дoгню, лoшaдиcт than нaмaжy (нaмaзaть/wipe/first person form), дoгoню (дoгнaть/chase after/first person form), and eздoк (rider). As a result, people have to change their habits to conform to the system. If they cling to their habits, they will get pressure from the system and are destined to break the original system and form a new one, causing changes in language. For example, дaть/give/—дaм, aшь, дacт; and ecть/eat/—eм, eшь, ecт. They successfully stand against the pressure from the language system and form a special system of verb conjugation.

194

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

(5) Contradictions between spoken and written languages Modern linguistics divides the standard language into two basic parts: spoken language and written language. Spoken language is the language spoken by the speakers of the standard language, which is beyond grammatical rules, while written language is the language written in accordance with strict grammatical rules after processing and extracting. Originally, language used to be audible oral language only; later, based on spoken language, written language came into being after characters were created. Oral language is the foundation and the source of language and it is primary; written language, after the processing of oral language, is secondary. The two are in constant interaction, mutual promotion and complement with each other (Xu 2000: 1–2). Contradictions between oral and written languages mainly are presented in two aspects. On one hand, the development of the two is not keeping in line with each other; on the other, the development of language needs the two to evolve in the same pace. Otherwise, the reform of written language should be carried out. Nowadays, the Russian oral language has two developing trends—simplified and analytical. The former mainly refers to the combination of words, (oдин гpaмм/ 1 g/– пять гpaмм/5 grams/); the simplification of multi-word names, (“Beчepняя Mocквa”—“Beчepкa”/Moscow Night Post/); the simplification of phrase structures, (кyxня плoщaдью в ceмь мeтpoв—кyxня ceмь мeтpoв/7-square meter kitchen/); the replacement of objective verbs by zero verbs, (н пoшeл зa xлeбoм—Oн зa xлeбoм/he went to buy breads),etc. The latter mainly refers to the extension of the function of indeterminate forms. For instance, C чeм пиpoжки?—Mяco, pиc, гopячиe./What’s the filling of the pie? Meat and rice and hot; Гaля пoшлa зa пoecть. ( = зa eдoй)/Gallia went to buy food; Дaйтe чaю и зaкycить. ( = зaкycки)/Please offer some tea and pastries (Xu 2000: 14). The two trends are not consistent with the conventions of written language. However, in the real world, the latter has been affected by the former. Written language also has similar trends with those of oral language. (6) Contradictions between dialects and common national languages Due to the differences in living areas, occupations, and living times of people, their language may have many variations which are known as dialects. A language must have a system of different dialects, among which one will be attached great attention to for its special social status and become a common language of that ethnic group. For example, Mandarin is standard Chinese language, which is based on Beijing dialect and ruled by the grammar of modern vernacular writings. Dialects exert influence on common national languages, bringing about new dynamism. To illustrate this point, “gao” (literally meaning “do”) and “ganga” (awkwardness) in Mandarin came from dialects, while “jiejing” (crystallize), “yingjian” (hardware) and “ruanjian” (software) in Mandarin are from common national languages. Meanwhile, common national languages may affect the development of dialects, for instance, words like “baba” (daddy) and “mama” (mom) have gradually replaced their counterparts in dialects across China.

8.4 Laws of Development of Linguistic Signs

8.4

195

Laws of Development of Linguistic Signs

8.4.1

Universal Laws of Language Development

What is law? It refers to the essential connection within phenomena, which determines the inevitable development of the phenomena. The objectivity of law means that law cannot be changed by the wills of human beings. Humans cannot create or alter objective laws but they can recognize and utilize them. Language, as a special social phenomenon, has laws pertaining to the development of it. The universal laws of language development are shared by all linguistic signs and are constrained by the special nature of human linguistic sings, namely the communicative function.

8.4.1.1

Gradualness of the Development of Linguistic Signs

It means that the process of language development and the process of changing the nature of language proceed gradually and partially rather than abruptly and promptly. It is known to us that a quality transition process in nature and society adopts various methods including explosive qualitative change and progressive qualitative change. To illustrate this point, social violent revolution, chemical combination and volcanic eruption take the form of explosion, that is, the nature of things abruptly change; there are progressive qualitative changes: the evolution from ape to man and the metal corrosion in moist air, which produces rust. Understanding all these transition forms, we can now understand the gradualness of language development. The changes in linguistic signs are achieved by the gradual accumulation of new elements and the gradual decline of old elements. In other words, language cannot develop by overturning the old language and creating the new one. The inheritance of language enables a language to enrich, improve and develop on the basis of the original one, and thus the emergence of a new language is based on the original language in a progressive form. For instance, English developed from a typical synthetic language into a modern language with analytical features and experienced the gradual process of Old English (ancient times–1150 AD)—Middle English (1150–1500 AD) and Modern English (1500 AD–). For another example, the term “Russian” generally refers to the modern Russian language which was eventually formed from the seventeenth century to the nineteenth century, but it also refers to the Russian tribal language between the fourteenth century and the sixteenth century. Moreover, it also refers to the ancient Russian tribal language from the ninth century to the thirteenth century when the Slavic language was not yet split into the Ukrainian, the Byelorussian and the Russian tribal languages, and sometimes it even refers to the Eastern Slavic tribal dialect of the sixth–eighth centuries and the common Slavic before the sixth

196

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

century. This actually on one aspect shows the succession and change of linguistic signs, and a later language is gradually formed based on a previous language. So language is a historical category, and it is passed down from generation to generation. It’s difficult to imagine how chaotic society would be if all of a sudden original languages are abandoned and new languages are adopted.

8.4.1.2

Unbalancedness of the Development of Linguistic Signs

This, to be specific, means the unbalanced change of language’s vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation. In general, vocabulary changes fast, and grammar and pronunciation change slowly. Grammar, in particular, is relatively stable, but it changes gradually. Why? Because words in the vocabulary are alternatives to objective things, and the vocabulary must quickly reflect the change of the objective things and phenomenons or language cannot act as a communication tool of reality, so the vocabulary changes fast. For example, the disintegration of the former Soviet Union led to the emergence of the word CHГ (CIS), and words like пpивaтизaция (privatization) and вayчep (private equity securities) appeared during the process of economization. Grammar is different from vocabulary. Grammar has strict systems, and a little change will affect the overall situation, as the change of grammar rules will affect a certain class of words or sentences rather than one word or one sentence. So grammar cannot be changed recklessly. Moreover, social changes do not directly affect grammar. Grammar changes with the development of human thinking and is “the result of the long-term abstraction of human thinking”; it is not directly related to all aspects of society. As for pronunciation, it changes slowly compared to vocabulary because it serves as the material shell of language and people who want to communicate must firstly transmit information through pronunciation. If pronunciation changes too quickly and frequently, language will lose its “conventionality,” resulting in misunderstanding between people and even impeding of communication.

8.4.1.3

Improvingness of the Development of Linguistic Signs

Language evolves with the development of society and keeps improving its structures and elements for communicating and expressing thoughts in a precise and subtle way. This tendency is a common and regular phenomenon for languages of different nations. In ancient Russian which was influenced by the Slavic language, syllable structures must comply with the “partial tone rule in syllables” and the “open syllables rule.” The former means that consonants and vowels in a syllable must unify; that is to say, a soft consonant must form a syllable with a front vowel and a hard consonant with a non-front vowel. The latter requires every syllable in a word must be open, that is, vowel-ending. But with the loss of harmonized vowels ъ, ь,

8.4 Laws of Development of Linguistic Signs

197

the two rules suffered a big impact. Therefore, modern Russian has improved itself through removing constraints. For example, the soft consonant н’ in the word нёбo [н’o-бo] (jaw) and the non-front vowel o form a syllable; the phenomena of closed syllables ending with consonants appear in the structure of words like cтoл (table), пeпeл (ash), лaмпa (lamp) and лoдкa (boat). In English, the word “dear” has meanings of “beloved” and “pricy” and both of them are commonly used, which is easy to lead to misunderstandings. So the word “expensive” is often used to mean “pricy” now as compensation and improvement. In China, the word “medicine” is a taboo for people in Guiping, a county of southern China’s Guangxi Province. Local people call it “tea,” which is a totally different thing from “medicine”; so for improvement, they use different collocations to refer to different things, for example, “eat tea” which means “take medicine,” and “drink tea” which refers to “tea” in its real sense.

8.4.1.4

Analogicality of the Development of Linguistic Signs

It means that changes in individual phenomenon will always be influenced by homogeneity and will gradually become assimilated. When the same phenomenon in a single language reaches a certain quantity, people will draw a law from it and the law, in turn, will analogize few atypical phenomena into a phenomenon to make them easier to remember (Peng and Li 2000: 362). For example, voiced plosives and affricates in ancient Chinese have become unvoiced; they are aspirated when they are in level tone and unaspirated in non-level tone, which is the result of analogicality. As another example, the word “pease” in English was a singular noun, but it has been taken as a plurality due to the psychological effect of analogy, so the suffix -se was removed and pea which remained has been taken as a singular noun. According to the relation between alcohol and alcoholic, some new words have been analogized, such as beer oholic (people who drink beer to excess habitually) and tel oholic (people who watch TV to excess habitually). So the suffix-oholic becomes, reasonably and unreasonably, a new morpheme. It is simply a combination of ohol in alcohol and ic, formed through analogy.

8.4.2

The Particularity of Linguistic Laws

8.4.2.1

Limitations of Linguistic Laws

Linguistic laws, different from laws of natural sciences, tend to confirm some results, but not all laws of language changes can find their root causes, especially some external causes. Therefore, laws of language changes can not predict the future development of language, but can only point out a possible trend. The current

198

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

specific linguistic laws, in fact, are more of a summary of past changes. They cannot foretell future changes exactly.

8.4.2.2

Timeliness of Language Changes

For example, laws of phonetic evolution only play a role in a certain period of time. After this period, even under the same conditions, there will not be any phonetic changes that follow the original laws. It is known that a major feature of the syllable structures of Slavic is that the consonants and vowels within the same syllable must follow the same combination; that is, they must be combined as “soft consonant + pre-vowel” or “hard consonant + non-pre-vowel.” For example, when the post-tongue sounds г[g], к[k], x[h] inherited from ancient Indo-European are placed in front of pre-vowel и, ь and e, they need to be softened and changed in pronunciation, turning into upper voice ж, ч, ш (дpyг-ъ/friend/—дpyжитьcя/make friends/; пeкapь/baker/—пeчeниe/bake/; cyxoй/dry/—cyшити/dry in the sun/); in the modern Russian phonetic system, the model of hard consonant + pre-vowel is very common: гeктap (hectare), Гeлиoc (Apollo), гeнepaл (general), гepoй (hero); гигиeнa (health), Гимaлaй (Himalayas), гимн (carol); кeнгypy (kangaroo), кeпкa (cap), кeтa (salmon); кинo (cinema), кипeть (boil), киcлый (sour), Китaй (China), xeмoтpoникa (chemical electronics), cxeмa (figure), xимия (chemistry), xилый (skinny), xитpый (sly), etc.

8.4.2.3

Regionality of Language Changes

Language change is like a wave, spreading out from a center, and the diffusion has geographical restrictions. For example, sound change only takes place in a certain region, and the law of voiced clearing is generally effective in China’s Northern Dialect system, while in areas where people speak Wuyu and Xiangyu dialects, the original voiced sound remains, and no clearing occurs. In another example, English is clearly divided into three dialect areas in the eastern USA (northern, middle and southern dialect areas in terms of geographic location). These dialect areas reflected the living conditions of early British immigrants who brought their dialects to these places. For example, vowels in half, bath, aunt, glass and laugh can be easily identified. In the eastern region, this pronunciation can be seen as an elegant manner; in other places, however, it is considered as affectation as this feature represents an aspect of the phonological division that took place in the eastern counties of England before the American Revolution. As folk utterance, [a] was transplanted by immigrants from their counties to New England and took root in London. Therefore, [a] was established as a fashionable word in those places most closely connected with the UK.

8.5 Contradictory Variation of Linguistic Signs

8.5

199

Contradictory Variation of Linguistic Signs

In the development of linguistic signs, variation is endless, but thousands of phenomena that escape from the normal orbit caused by the combination of one or more forces are only based on the original words, most of which turn into bubbles at last, such as incorrect pronunciation, grammatical errors, awkward wording, word borrowing, jokes making, distorted word formation for the rhythm of poetry and new meaning of a word. Most of them have been things of the past without being noticed or just for a while. Only a few are noticed, valued and adopted, and finally they are accepted and preserved. In the investigation of the development of linguistic signs, some interesting phenomena can be observed; that is, variation often has certain contradictions and oppositions. However, to a certain extent, it is in these phenomena that linguistic signs seek balance and development. English and Russian can be taken as examples.

8.5.1

Assimilation and Dissimilation

Assimilation and dissimilation mainly refer to phonetics.

8.5.1.1

Assimilation

Assimilation refers to the instruction given (or executed) too early or too late, which results in phoneme transfer. When spoken in haste, “tin box,” “manpower,” “gunboat” and “in place” easily sound like “tim box,” “mampower,” “gumboat” and “implace”; that is to say, when [n] is followed by the bilabial sound [b] or [p], it will become the bilabial sound [m]. In Latin, this is what turns the prefix in- into im- and com- into con-. This assimilation also applies to some English loanwords such as “impress” and “immense”; and “condign” and “contend.” It is common that an unvoiced consonant assimilates into a voiced one when the former is between vowels. Actually, vowels are voiced. When coming across consonants, people fail to stop pronouncing voiced sounds or start to pronounce voiced sound early before speaking the next vowel. Assimilation causes the voiced sound to replace [t] in American English, such as “latter,” “better,” “atom” and “get’ im.” Assimilation (accимиляция), as a phonological process, is common in Russian. Assimilation commonly occurs between adjacent sounds due to similar pronunciation, by which one sound becomes more like a nearby sound. For example, the same prefix between cдaл[zdal] (surrender) and cпeл[sp’l] (sing) remains the feature of unvoiced consonants before unvoiced ones, but is also affected by voiced consonants before voiced ones, and when this prefix is pronounced, the vocal cords

200

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

vibrate, thus becoming voiced consonants. The result of assimilation may lead to changes in the local features of some phonemes, which is called local assimilation (чacтичнaя accимиляция). As mentioned above, the unvoiced sound in [zdal] becomes voiced, but it still remains the original features of the dental consonants and fricatives. Sometimes, two different sounds merge into a long sound after assimilation such as “paзжaть[r^’z:at’] (loosen)—paздaть[r^zdat’].” The [z] in the first word at the end of the prefix is affected by the post-alveolar consonant and is combined with the post-alveolar consonant into a long tone [z:]. This type of assimilation is called total assimilation (пoлнaя accимиляция).

8.5.1.2

Dissimilation

There is a metaphor for dissimilation: When a pianist must play the same note twice, it will be difficult for the same nerve center to issue action instructions twice in succession, so he first plays the note with one finger and then with another, thus overcoming difficulties. Likewise, one mouth speaking the same word twice is not as convenient as two mouths doing it at once, so we always avoid repetition. In the sentence, Our time is up in five minutes, it is not difficult to pronounce the first word [awr], although we often simplify it into [ar]. But in Our hour is up in five minutes, we will definitely say [ar] to avoid repeating [aw]. Dissimilation in Russian is an adjacent sound change involving the loss of a syllable when it’s next to a phonetically identical or similar syllable. Dissimilation (диccимиляция) mainly occurs in consonants. For example, (1) According to the old Moscow pronunciation, the phonetic group чн in many words is pronounced as [шn], and the affricate [ts] loses its plosive feature before the plosive [n], so it is pronounced as a voiceless palatal fricative [s], such as “кoнeчнo[k^’n’sn^](certainly),” “cкyчнo[‘skusn^](wearily),” “пpaчeчнaя[‘pratsisnj](laundry),”and “cквopeчник[skvn’r’sn’ik](sturnus).” (2) The standard sound of the two words “чтo (what)” and “чтoбы (for)” is [st] and [‘stbj]. (3) “мягкo (softly),” “лeгкo (easy)” and the plosive [g] in the cognate are dissimilated (and devoiced) into fricative [x]: [m’ a’ xk], [l’ e’ xk] and so on. However, the fact is that consonants are disappearing in modern Russian. Many phonetic groups that were dissimilated in the past are no longer dissimilated, or the scope of dissimilation is shrinking. Dissimilation in a modern standard language is irregular, because its scope is often limited to a small number of words or it only occurs in some individual words.

8.5 Contradictory Variation of Linguistic Signs

8.5.2

201

Adding and Removing

The purpose of adding is to make the difficult phonetic sequence easier to read. For example, [m] in “fumble,” “humble” and “grumble” is divided into two parts: half [m] and half [b], because the non-nasalized [l] is pronounced too early. Consonant clusters are even more complex, so views on removing consonants vary in different languages. In Romance-speaking regions (including the current French and Spanish), the residents during the pre-Roman period did not accept the first consonant cluster starting with [s], and they split the first consonant cluster into two syllables by adding the first vowel [e]. In this way, estudie (study) in ancient French, estudio (study) in Spanish and estudo (study) in Portuguese appeared. All these words were derived from a Latin word—studium (desire, study). In the example —“strike (a pitched ball)” used in playing baseball becomes sutoraiku in Japanese, we can see that the consonant cluster in Japanese is split even more thoroughly. The phenomenon of adding also exists in Russian, which is mainly reflected in some historical morphophonemic alternations (иcтopичecкoe фoнeтичecкoe чepeдoвaниe), such as cыпaть (sprinkle)—cыплю; [b]—[bl’]: любить (love) —люблю, гpeбy (row)—гpeбля; [v]—[vl’]: лoвyшкa (trap)—лoвлю (catch); [f]— [fl’]: гpaфa (column)—гpaфлю (draw); and [m]—[ml’]: кopм (forage)—кopмлю (feed). Removing is opposite to adding literally, but actually they are both used to avoid problems of pronunciation or usage. Literally, removing is the shortening of vowels, such as the second vowel in “schirreve” (reeve means an official of the king, or the chief of justice of the shire) is shortened into an unstressed vowel [ ], thus forming the word “sheriff” (chief of justice of the county) in modern English. Many young people pronounce “sheriff” as [srf] (compared with Russian). The vowel shortening appears in the adjective word in this phrase “a crooked stick” (the adjective ending in -ed mostly loses the vowel). “Mirror” is pronounced as mere [mi], and “cabinet” is pronounced as cabnet. As for the word “laboratory,” most Americans read it as l’aboratory, while most British people read it as lab’oratry, both of which lose a syllable. Not only can the whole phoneme be removed, but the whole word, especially the non-stressed function word will also be removed. For example, “Deed I Do” replaces “Indeed I Do”; “You like it?” can be regarded as a simplified version of “Do you like it?” rather than a statement like “He likes it?” Young speakers push this acronym phenomenon to the extreme. Compared with adults, their ability to control language is weak. They tend to read stressed syllables and omit others, for example, “expression” is read as “pression”; and “giraffe” is read as “raff.” Most nicknames are the result of children’s reluctance to read redundant syllables when they are young. For instance, “Frederick” is called as “Fred,” “William” is called as “Will,” “Anqella” is called as “Anqie” and “Christopher” is called as “Chris.” Removing can be seen in some consonant groups in Russian, but the removing here is an illusion; that is, it only exists in writing, but not pronounced. For

202

8 Synchrony and Diachrony of Linguistic Signs

example, [т] in “чecтнo (honestly),” “гpycтнo (melancholy),” “пoзднo (late)” and “пpaздник (festival)” is omitted when pronunced. More examples like “мapкcиcтcкий (Marxist),” “пpoпaгaндиcтcкий (promotional)”; “Гoллaндcкий (Netherlandish),” “Финляндcкий (Finnish)”; “чyвcтвo (emotion),” “здpaвcтвyй (hello)”; “cepдцe (heart),” “coлнцe (sun)” and so on.

8.5.3

Combination and Separation

Combination is a developing part of the arbitrariness of language. It can be interpreted as a tendency in which two or three coordinate and meaningful components are considered as a unit rather than taken separately. For example, a woman gives little bits of candy to a child. In this sentence, “little bits of” can be analyzed clearly by the woman in both pronunciation and language structure while it is a unit for the child. Therefore, the adjective “little-bitty” or “itty-bitty” is formed as synonyms of the word “tiny.” A student studying for a degree writes “thus far” as “thusfar” in her paper. Obviously, the two words “thus” and “far” have no separate meaning for her. Then the word “thusfar” is included in grammatical combinations like “whatsoever” “nevertheless” “underway” and “notwithstanding.” Besides, the function of combination is also reflected in regular inflection, a process of word formation. For example, the word is written as “babysitted” instead of “babysat”; words “pinch-hitted” and “broadcasted” are the past forms of “pinch-hit” and “broadcast,” respectively. If “to babysit” is not a compound word, it could be used in the same way as “to sit.” Combination plays a guiding role. We often focus on its result while ignoring the origin as soon as the “guidance” is formed, be it right or wrong. For example, there is no need to think of “chilblains” as “blains caused by chills,” “How do you do?” as “how to do something,” and “never mind” as an imperative sentence, “Don’t pay attention to something!” Therefore, combination is a familiar relevance and new relevance creates new meaning, and language continues to be gradually constructed in this way. It is a natural evolution that words are blended together by combination, while separation also occurs. New divisions are made in sentences now. Take the following dialogue between an uncle and his nine-year-old nephew as an example: UNCLE: No, she’s never ridden one. NEPHEW: I’ve never rid on one either. In this example, an extra word is created by the wrong division. “Metanalysis” is a technical term in linguistics coined by Otto Jespersen, and many examples of such phenomena could be cited in the history of English language. a nadder ! an adder; a napron ! an apron;

8.5 Contradictory Variation of Linguistic Signs

203

richesse ! rich-es (plural); pease (collective noun) ! pea-s (plural); cherry (collective noun) ! cherr-ies (plural); bod-ice (plural-old use) ! bodices. As above, some of the most common mistakes include the division between the indefinite article “an” and the following noun, and between the plural suffix or hypothetical plural suffix and the preceding noun stem. Like wealth, corn and fruit, the words rechesse, pease and cherris are collective nouns, and their pronunciations happen to be those of their plural suffixes. There is a particular form of metanalysis called “back-formation.” For example, the singular form of “pease” is “pea” produced by removing its suffix. Back-formation is often the result of metanalysis and overgeneralization, a process of wrong word division, when the listeners associate part of the word with some morphological component (usually a true suffix, and sometimes a fake suffix). The component seems to be independent. The reasoning is as follows: If a “seller” means someone who “sells” something, then an “usher” should be someone who “*ushes” and a “proctor” should be someone who “*procts.” Thereupon, on the basis of the adjective sedative, the verb “to sedate” is formed by referring to similar pairs such as “relative and relate,” and “denotative and denote.” Influenced by the suffixes “-ise” and “-ige,” the verb “to televise” derives from the word “television.” Similarly, the word “ham” refers to meat, which makes “-burger” easier to be separated from the word “hamburger” and become a new quasi suffix root, which can be found in nut burger, meat burger, cheeseburger and other new words.

Chapter 9

Functions of Linguistic Signs

9.1

An Introduction to Functionalism

9.1.1

Origins of Functionalism

“Functions of linguistic signs” are the major research contents of functionalism, so it is necessary to make an introduction to functionalism first. Functionalism is an academic trend opposed to formalism in contemporary linguistics, which is to describe and explain various linguistic phenomena through the functions that are realized by language in social communication.

9.1.1.1

Psychological and Linguistic Foundations of Functionalism

(1) Psychological foundation The theoretical core of functionalism lies in “the rational performance of the communicative function,” which is closely related to psychological theories. On the one hand, the main ideas of functionalism conform to the features of human mental representation. It is indicated by the findings of psycholinguistic research that people will usually develop a motive and outline what they want to say before speaking and then express themselves by searching and selecting a proper language form. Thus, in the process of forming a representation, the speaker transforms his thoughts into meaning and then into expression methods. On the other hand, functional grammar is the direct manifestation of functionalist theories, and it is constructed in accordance with the characteristics of human thinking. Thinking is a kind of psychological phenomenon. The psychological process, including the occurrence, development and transformation of thinking, is the form of thinking activities for all people, in which the human brain reflects reality. Human thinking is of commonality and universality, so nationalities that use © Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_9

205

206

9

Functions of Linguistic Signs

different languages have common notional categories, especially those that are more abstract than specific notions. Moreover, the number of notional categories of thinking is relatively limited, which, for example, is divided into such eight general categories by some linguists as existence, space, time, quantity, quality, spirit or mentality, relation and reference. As for a same notion, different nationalities use different languages to express it, while the frequently used one forms the common core of functional grammar, which serves for communication. (2) Linguistic foundation Linguistics, stated here, primarily refers to sociolinguistics. Philosophers and linguists, in the past, usually defined the characteristics of language in two aspects: a sign system conditioned by the society and a communication tool used by people. For instance, as Germanic linguistic philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt pointed out, langue is an inner structure, reflecting the mental ability of the speaker while parole is a kind of explicit behavior; Swiss structuralist linguist Ferdinand de Saussure also held that langue is an abstract system a certain speech community has in common, and it determines the form of parole used by people as a set of universal principles, while parole, as the explication of language, reflects the characteristics of the speaker and is closely connected with specific environment. Avram Noam Chomsky distinguished the two sides of language with linguistic competence and linguistic performance; linguistic competence refers to a system consisting of the internalization of language rules while linguistic performance refers to “the actual use of language in concrete situations.” However, in the above researches, the linguists focused on langue and linguistic competence, namely the sign system conditioned by the society, but neglected the research of parole and its performance, namely the communication tools used by people in the society. Furthermore, linguistic theories of the past explored language as an independent sign system, including the form, rule and structure of language; they did not or rarely consider the laws underlying language use by people in the society and language variations caused by human social impact. This kind of language research is independent of the language user and separated from the social context in which language is used, so it is usually hard to reach a scientific conclusion. With the continuous development of linguistic theories, linguistics has shifted its emphasis from the research of form to that of language use. Sociolinguistics is such a science that studies the laws about how humans use language to communicate with each other and takes social communication as language’s most essential function. It is different from the previous researches of various linguistic schools that focused on the form and structure of language and puts more emphasis on the social functions of language as well as the systematic corresponding relations and the causality between the variation of language structures and that of social structures. Functional linguistics is based on the methodology of sociolinguistics. Compared with other linguistic theories, functional linguistics analyzes language used in communication as a sign system involving three levels; that is, the system of

9.1 An Introduction to Functionalism

207

linguistic signs consists of not only sign and rule, but also language environment. The last refers to the environment involved in the language fragments to be analyzed, including context, communicators and background involved in communication. The competence and functions of language also provide theoretical foundation for functional linguistics. Linguist Dell Hymes puts forward different views on Chomsky’s concept of “linguistic competence.” He held that, for a language learner, linguistic competence is reflected not only in whether he could make grammatical sentences or not, but also in whether he could use language properly. Therefore, Hymes (1970) developed the famous notion of communicative competence, which includes linguistic competence and linguistic performance as well. Furthermore, Hymes illustrated the four features of communicative competence: (1) The ability to use a language well involves knowing (either explicitly or implicitly) how to use the language appropriately in any given context. (2) The ability to speak and understand language is not based solely on grammatical knowledge. (3) What counts as an appropriate language varies according to context and may involve a range of modes, for example, speaking, writing, singing, whistling and drumming. (4) Learning what counts as an appropriate language occurs through a process of socialization into particular ways of using the language through participation in particular communities. The meaning of communicative competence stated above by Hymes is exactly the purpose of functional linguistics and is also the fundamental reason why functional grammar is called communicative grammar. Michael Halliday’s systemic-functional grammar also begins with studying the functions of language. According to Halliday, language is not a system of producing structures, but that of expressing meaning. From the perspective of linguistic performance, he put forward three functions of language: cognitive function, the function of establishing and maintaining human relations and the function of connecting context with language, which is the core of his metafunction theory. Linguistic studies in the past were restricted to cognitive function and neglected the other two functions; under this kind of ideological guidance, grammatical theories only focused on the teaching of language form and aimed at mastering cognitive function. As a result, students were not capable of using language and mastering communicative competence. Thus, as functional linguistics appeared, the problem of coordination between knowledge and usage was faultlessly solved.

9.1.1.2

The Prague School

The Prague School is also called the “Functional School” as it stresses the function of elements within language. At the earliest, it put forward the notion of linguistic function and took language as a system of functions, making significant achievement in the functional research and practice. The Prague Linguistic Circle (hereinafter, the Circle), as the main organization of the Prague School, was founded in 1926 and published the Outline of the Prague

208

9

Functions of Linguistic Signs

Linguistic Circle in 1929 as its theoretical guideline and manifesto. The founder of the Circle is Germanist Vilém Mathesius (1882–1945) from Czechoslovakia; besides, the academic leaders and representatives included Russian scholar Niolai Trubetzkoi (1890–1938) and Carl Paderewski (1884–1955), both of whom were living abroad, Roman Jackobson from the former Soviet Union and Josef Vachek who was the most active in the later period. The Circle witnessed its golden period in the early and middle 1930s when a large number of outstanding talents came forward, and there were great achievements. In the late 1930s, academic activities of the Circle were at a standstill as Czechoslovakia was occupied by Nazi Germany. After World War II, the Circle returned to life and began to work actively. At the beginning of the 1950s, the Circle was disbanded while its members and coming scholars, on the basis of theories established by the Circle, continued to make researches, respectively. Although the academic society was gone, the Prague School was developing all the way. However, as there was not a unified academic organization, lacking unified objectives and guiding ideology, the Prague School was moving toward diversification. The concept of linguistic function is one of the most important viewpoints for the Prague School. The Prague School linguists hold that function means a certain purpose. They think that the most important features of the language system are its function and mission and the actual use of the language. Vilem Mathesius described the interrelation of the form and its function as follows: “In fact, there does not exist the function without form as well as the form without function; … form and function are the two sides of the same phenomenon, and they usually depend on each other.” At the First International Congress of Slavists in 1929, the Prague School submitted the Outline of the Prague Linguistic Circle in which their theory of functionalism got full expression: “language is the product of human activities, and language and human activities are with definite purposes. The analysis on speech act serving as a communication tool shows that expression is the most general purpose of the speaker and this kind of purpose is displayed clearly. Thus, it is necessary to make linguistic analysis from the perspective of function. Seen from this point of view, language is a system of expression means which serves a certain purpose.” Based on the above understanding on function, the Prague School put forward several basic ideas of function and made some achievements: (1) Language is a system of expression means which serves a certain communicative purpose, namely functional system; the research on any linguistic phenomena cannot be done without purpose or function as they are the starting point and standpoint of the research. (2) The structure of language includes form and function, and the two sides are indivisible. So, linguistics should study the form as well as the function, and it cannot only study the former and put aside the latter. (3) Language structure is of integrity and hierarchy and consists of fixed expression means, all of which are closely connected to each other and play different roles

9.1 An Introduction to Functionalism

209

in linguistic communication. Therefore, language structure is not only a set of formal systems, but a functional system, namely a system of expression means which serves a certain purpose. More exactly and comprehensively, language is the unified entity of formal systems and functional systems. The task of linguistics should not be restricted to the analysis of formal systems but to study the functions that are presented by the expression means of language in communication. (4) The Prague School held that besides language structure, linguistic research should focus more on the actual use of language in communication, namely the different functions presented by the expression means of language in communication. The actual use of language belongs to the category of parole; thus, parole becomes an important research object in linguistics. Meanwhile, the Prague School proposed to study various nonlinguistic factors that are closely connected to language, such as social factor, historical factor, mental factor and physiological factor. It also claimed that linguistics should consider social factors (especially, cultural factors therein) as well as study language itself. To a large extent, the purpose of linguistic studies is to serve the society and help people with their language accomplishment, rather than to study language itself merely as language is a sign system of sociality and functionality. (5) In terms of the methods of language research, the main contribution of the Prague School lies in the establishment of comparative analysis and function-meaning analysis. Trubetzkoy held what should be stressed in the phonetic system is not the syntagmatic relation but the opposite characteristics between phonemes; the research on phonemic opposition directly leads to the separation of phonology from phonetics, and the former then becomes an independent discipline. Based on this, Jacobson made a further analysis and put forward the concept of distinctive characteristic—a unit smaller than phoneme, which led to the emergence of the Markedness Theory. The approach of function-meaning analysis (also known as effective segmentation method), primarily used for syntactic analysis, was put forward by the founder of functional linguistics Mathesius at the earliest and then improved by the linguists of the Prague School. Mathesius claimed that the different effects that sentence elements played in communication constitute the “communicative momentum,” so the analysis of sentences should be on the basis of the different communicative functions that words perform in a sentence, and a sentence is divided into two parts: theme and rheme. Theme refers to the information known by each side in communication, while rheme stands for various reports, explanations and illustrations that have been made on the basis of the known information; the latter refers to the new information that the speaker wants to convey, namely the new information that he thinks the other side may not know. The approach of function-meaning analysis made a functional explanation on the differences between grammatical subject, logic subject and psychological subject in traditional documents, explored a new approach that linguists in the pasthad never provided for making further exploration on the

210

9

Functions of Linguistic Signs

laws of internal structures of sentences and discourses and made a theoretical preparation for the establishment of text linguistics in the future. (6) The Prague School held that when people communicate by using language, they choose a certain means of language expression according to a certain communicative purpose, communicative task and communication range; different purposes, tasks and conditions lead to different means of language expression and their different combinations, which form different functional styles. These styles usually fall into such genres as colloquialism, scientific style, political style, literature and art style and official document style, each of which could be divided into smaller units. Finally, all of these functional styles of language form a larger system of functional styles. The appearance of the theory of functional style contributed a lot to the foundation of functional stylistics and functional rhetoric.

9.1.1.3

Western Linguistic Schools

Although the Prague School played a big role in the enlightenment and development of functionalist theory, unfortunately, their works in the early period were not spread widely as they were published in Czech. It was until Jacobson and Andre Martinet settled down in America and gave lectures for a long while that their achievements got great attention. Therefore, during the development of functionalism, theories of the Western linguistic schools played a critical role in the formation of functionalist theories. (Hu 2000: 14–20) First of all, we may refer to John Firth from the London School of Linguistics. Although his works were abstruse and not systematic, he met and cultivated a group of outstanding linguists in Britain. His insights could be concluded as follows: (1) Language as a multisystem. Language is a kind of meaningful behavior and its concrete meaning is simultaneously expressed in semantic, grammatical, lexical and phonetic levels. (2) Stress on semantics research. He held that the primary task of descriptive linguistics is to give statements through meaning, and that linguistic context is vital for understanding sentences and the words used in sentences. (3) Establishment of the phonetics of rhythm. The speech sound of paradigmatic relation which never varies in any phonetic environment is called “phoneme unit,” of which the one of syntagmatic relation is called “rhythmic unit”; he regarded the research on the latter as indispensible and feasible. (4) Emphasis on discourse studies. Compared with Saussure’s focus on the research of language system, Firth attached great importance to the studies of “discourse” which is a typical example of semantic choice in social contexts. Louis Hjelmslev, a representative of the Copenhagen School (also known as glossematics), was such a linguist whose thoughts are highly systematic and his viewpoints were often referenced in functionalist literature. His main theories included four aspects: (1) Emphasis on the research of linguistic facts. Hjelmslev thought linguistics research should focus on the constants which exist in a host of

9.1 An Introduction to Functionalism

211

facts. Linguistic description should follow the three principles of positivism, namely consistency, exhaustiveness and simplicity. (2) Content and expression. He defined intralinguistic relationship as that of “content” and “expression”; the former includes semantic level and lexical level, while the latter includes phonetic form and written form. (3) Form and essence. The “form” here refers to the form of linguistic unit, and the “essence” refers to the actual ways of voice and writing. As the visible essence has been taken as a linguistic fact, glossematics has no essential difference with functionalism under this kind of situation. (4) System and process. Hjelmslev considered that the former refers to paradigmatic relation, while the latter refers to syntagmatic relation; with process, there must be system but not vice versa. Affected by politics after World War II, Czech scholars had less and less academic contact with their counterparts in Europe and America. Then, the mission of inheriting and developing the theories of the Prague School fell on French linguist Martinet and others. Martinet’s unique contribution can be listed as follows: (1) The double articulation of language. Language is a communicative tool with double articulation; meaningful units of sound called morphemes make up the first level, and they are the minimum combination units of sound and meaning, while the second level consists of distinctive units—phonemes. Functional linguistics includes syntax and phonemics, and they, respectively, correspond to the above two levels. (2) The principle of economy in language. Martinet thought there is a basic conflict between the need of human communication and expression and the natural human inertia in physiology and intelligence;the former requires developing more updated, complicated and specific language units, while the latter requires using less numerous, less specific and more frequently occurring units. For example, the concepts of opposition and neutralization in functional phonology can be used in syntactic analysis; the opposition between the singular and plural forms of a noun sometimes turns to neutralization or conformity. (3) The principle of realism. In order to put the linguistic facts into the research of language activities, the objects of linguistic studies should be human “speech events,” instead of putting langue and parole as opposites. Linguistic studies should follow the principle of realism, which means it is not advisable to give up certain linguistic facts of great importance for the maintenance of a hypothesis, a principle or a method. Simon Dik, a Netherlandish linguist whose insights have always been cited in functional works in recent years, published two monographs and a collection of theses relating to functional grammar from 1978 to 1983, and his thoughts are mainly reflected in two aspects: (1) Three functions. Dik divided function into three types: semantic function, syntactic function and pragmatic function. (2) The sedimentation and conflict of function. Although Dik proposed to interpret structural rules of language from the perspective of functionalism, he did not think it means each feature of language structure can be matched with a functional interpretation. The structure features related to function may deposit and lose its original function in the historical evolution of language, or the mutual contradiction between different functions will make certain functions disappear. Talmy Givón, an American linguist and professor at University of Oregon, plays an increasingly obvious role in contemporary functionalism. Since the 1970s,

212

9

Functions of Linguistic Signs

Givón has made linguistic studies from a functionalist approach and gained great achievements. His viewpoints can be summed up as follows: (1) Emphasis on “context.” Context has a vital impact on the communication process of parole, and it can be divided into such three kinds as common signified, common discourse and common worldview. (2) The linkage between language and biology. Functionalism should start from biology and link language with biology. (3) Iconicity. Different from Saussure’s viewpoints, Givón holds that human language is a language code, and to some extent, it is nonarbitrary, namely iconicity, because the evolution of human language and thinking or the evolution of communicative competence can be equated with that of the organisms. (4) The status of statement. In terms of the studies on modality, Givón objects to the traditional logic that separates statement from the speaker, discourse and context, which is related to the theory of context.

9.1.2

Functionalist Approaches to Signs

The word “function” comes from the old Latin root “functio,” which has two meanings: one refers to “function” (a special activity or purpose of a person or thing) and the other refers to “function” (a quantity whose value depends on the varying values of others) or “functional relation.” When this Latin root is introduced into linguistics, the first meaning is usually adopted (the Copenhagen School in Denmark prefers the second meaning). But, because of the complexity of linguistic signs, the word “function” has different meanings. It is calculated that “function” has been used in linguistic literature with more than 25 meanings, including “capacity,” “usage,” “purpose,” “effect,” “use,” “significance,” etc. Although it is hard to exactly define the function of linguistic signs, various functionalist approaches provide vast space for linguistic studies; linguists who know and understand the Functional School have undoubtedly offered theoretical possibilities for promoting this research hotspot.

9.1.2.1

Bühler’s Functional Views

German psychologist and linguist Karl Bühler identified three functions of language in his book Sprachtheorie (1934): (1) Representational function is to give a statement to all facts. (2) Expressive function is to show the characteristics of the speaker. (3) Vocative function is to influence the listener. Among the three functions, he regarded the representational function as the primary one.

9.1 An Introduction to Functionalism

9.1.2.2

213

Jakobson’s Functional Views

In his thesis Linguistics and Poetics (1960), American linguist Roman Jakobson divided the functions of language into six categories: (1) Referential function is to describe various phenomena in the actual world and the fictional world, which, also called denotative function or cognitive function, is similar to the representational function presented by Bühler. (2) Emotive function aims at a direct expression of the speaker’s attitude toward what he is speaking about, which is equivalent to Bühler’s expressive function. (3) Conative function means that the speaker, by means of language, can influence the listener and achieve a certain effect, which is equivalent to Bühler’s vocative function. (4) Phatic function is to engage in social activities for establishing and maintaining social contact, not for exchanging information. (5) Metalingual function or glossing function means that language can be used to talk about itself. (6) Poetic function is to organize the message involved in various language forms such as poetry. Like Bühler, Jakobson asserted that language has many functions, and among them, there is a fundamental one. In the six functions stated above, he put the referential function at the first place.

9.1.2.3

Richards’s Functional Views

British literary critic and litterateur Ivor Armstrong Richards expressed his views of the function of language (he called it as meaning) in his book Practical Criticism (1929), “In language communication research including literary study and other forms, the coexistence of multiple meanings is an important fact.” And he argued that language has four types of functions or meanings. (1) Sense is to describe the items or the state of affairs, which is equivalent to Bühler’s representational function and Jakobson’s referential function. (2) Feeling is the speaker’s attitude toward the items or the state of affairs, which equals to Bühler’s expressive function and Jakobson’s emotive function. (3) Tone refers to the attitude of the speaker toward his listener, which is equivalent to Bühler’s vocative function and Jakobson’s conative function. (4) Intention means that the speaker would reach a certain purpose through speech, which is part of Jakobson’s conative function from the perspective of meaning. Richards held the same view with Bühler and Jakobson on the point that there are primary and secondary distinctions between language functions. Among the four functions listed above, he took sense as language’s most fundamental function.

214

9.1.2.4

9

Functions of Linguistic Signs

Lyons’s Functional Views

British linguist John Lyons defined the three functions of language in his book Semantics (1977): (1) Descriptive function is to describe the factual information and state of affairs, which is equivalent to Bühler’s representational function, Jakobson’s referential function and Richards’s “sense.” (2) Social function is to establish and maintain social relations, which is equivalent to Bühler’s expressive function, Jakobson’s emotive function and phatic function and Richards’s “feeling.” (3) Expressive function is to reveal the characteristics of the speaker, which is equivalent to Bühler’s expressive function, Jakobson’s emotive function and Richards’s “feeling.” Expressive function is closely related to social function, and they two cannot be completely separated with each other. Lyons also held that language has multiple functions which are in different levels. He took the descriptive function as the most fundamental one.

9.1.2.5

Halliday’s Functional Views

Australian linguist Michael Halliday put forward a set of new views after making a further study on the basis of the previous researches. He described the three functions of language in his book Language as Social Semiotic (1978). (1) Ideational function consists of two parts: experiential function and logical function. The former is to express the speaker’s personal experiences and psychological activities, which is equivalent to Bühler’s representational function, Jakobson’s referential function and metalingual function, Richards’s “sense” and Lyons’s descriptive function. The latter is to express the abstract logical relationship derived from one’s personal experiences. (2) Interpersonal function is to establish and maintain social relations between speakers and listeners through language, which is equivalent to Bühler’s vocative function and expressive function, Jakobson’s emotive function, conative function, and phatic function, and Richards’s “feeling,” “tone” and “intention,” and Lyons’s social function and expressive function. (3) Textual function is to make language coherent and suitable in the context, which is similar to Jakobson’s poetic function; but Halliday made a deeper study in this respect. Compared with the above four linguists, Halliday held different opinions that ideational function, interpersonal function and textual function are equally important, and there is not any hierarchical relationship between them. Although there is divergence of views on the number and kinds of language functions, the opinions of the above five scholars basically represent those of the

9.1 An Introduction to Functionalism

215

linguistic circle. To have a better understanding on relationship between the language functions defined by the five scholars, Chinese linguist Zhu Yongsheng made an analysis and comparison and listed a parallel table. (Zhu 1990: 48) Bühler

Jakobson

Lyons

Richards

Halliday

Representational

Referential metalingual Emotive conative phatic Poetic

Sense

Descriptive

Ideational

Feeling tone intention

Social expressive

Interpersonal

Vocative expressive

9.1.3

Textual

Rethinkings of Functions of Linguistic Signs

As stated above, functional linguists define various functions of language, which reflects the universality of the meaning of function. But, it must be pointed out that the studies on the functions of language in recent years are showing a tendency toward the expression and use of language, and functional linguistics is defined as follows: “the basic function of language is a communication tool and language is a system of expression means which serves a certain communicative purpose; thus, functional linguistics is such a linguistic theory that specializes in studying the realization of language’s communicative function.” From this aspect, we agree with Xu Shenghuan’s view that the functions of linguistic signs are divided into semantic function and communicative function. (Xu 1990: 21) Semantic function means that language could make a basic expression on the objective target, while communicative function means that communicators make social communication on the basis of semantic function; semantic function is the metafunction, and the foundation of communicative function can only be realized on the basis of semantic function. These two functions describe language from two different perspectives, which forms an approximate corresponding relation. Generally speaking, the description of language from the perspective of cognition is to explain how language can make its users realize the semantic function of language; the description of language from the perspective of intentional category is to explain how language can make its users realize the communicative function of language. The categories of cognition and intention are quoted from psychological research; the former includes feelings, consciousness, presentation, impression, understanding, cognition, etc., and the latter includes attention, impulsion, volition, interest, motivation, emotion, etc. The survey and description of language from the perspective of cognition, in brief, refer to how language shows that its users recognize and grasp the object to be stated; the description of language from the perspective of intentional category refers to how language shows what kind of attitudes and value orientation its users hold toward the object to be stated. The

216

9

Functions of Linguistic Signs

“intention” does not include the descriptions or narrations signified by lexical meaning, like “my dear friend,” “I can…/I want…,” as they come down to the category of cognition. What’s more, these descriptions or narrations, through the verification of context, may be proved as an antiphrasis which is the real intention. Here are several examples: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

The duke gave my aunt that teapot. My aunt was given that teapot by the duke. That teapot was given my aunt by the duke. That teapot the duke gave to my aunt. My aunt, the duke gave that teapot to her. The teapot, the duke gave it to my aunt. …… (n) GIVE (d, a, t)

Sentences (1) and (2) express the meaning of a predicate logic pattern like (n) through their semantic function: “d” does an action of “G” on “a” and “t.” This is a kind of cognitive meaning which has been abstracted, as well as a neutral meaning having no value orientation. Meanwhile, supposed that these sentences are parts of communication fragments and undertake certain communicative tasks and will realize their communicative function, they are functionally adjusted on the basis of cognitive meaning to reach a certain specific communicative purpose, reflecting the communicator’s specific intention. For instance, sentence (1) approximately equals to an “unmarked” sentence according to the clause structure SVOO and reserves the end focus. In sentences (2) and (3), there is a passive adjustment and the agent may become the semantic focus; the two sentences, with different themes, have different communicative intentions which are for either certain interpersonal communication or contextual needs. In sentence (4), an adjustment is made to the theme, bringing a certain attention value to the marked theme. In sentence (5), a left-dislocation movement is realized and the marked theme gains greater attention value. All this reflects certain attention, impulse, will, interest, motivation and emotion. Generally speaking, people solve cognitive problems through syntactic or semantic mechanisms; for example, through the analysis of “subject,” “past,” “passive,” “process,” “agent” and “human,” sentences that feature complicated and changeable forms can be divided into simple expressions made up of several basic properties. Abstracted from people’s experience, these properties can be known by communicators from their own perception and experience. This kind of description of language is to provide a cognitive pattern for people and transfer complicated things into logical relations. Nevertheless, pragmatic mechanism is used to solve the problem of value orientation, such as analysis of the nature of “theme,” “given,” “focus,” and “marked”. The description of language used from the perspective of intentional category is the outcome of full research on the relationship between language users and the language. In the communication, there never exists any completely objective

9.1 An Introduction to Functionalism

217

expression which is apart from the subjective experience of language users. Under the given circumstance, language users would put their intention into their expression when stating a certain situation. And the users would arrange their words according to this intention, and thus, the above sentences are made up. In this sense, functional linguistics would eventually explain such a law: how to standardize the construction of discourse according to the goal. In a broad sense, the “goal” is a choice made by language users whose intention has been activated by external information, as well as the product of contact between subjectivity and objectivity of language users.

9.2

Social Factors and Formalism

Research shows that linguistic functionalists share a common mindset that they recognize the relationship between linguistic functionalism and social factors while approving the contrary between linguistic functionalism and formalism. Combining the two aspects, this section expounds further the functionalist approaches to linguistic signs.

9.2.1

Functions of Linguistic Signs and Social Factors

Formalism, compared with other linguistic theories, has the biggest strong point that it doesn’t take language as something secluded but an act closely related to social factors and regards function of language as a reflection on social factors, thinking that the multifunctions of language indicate the complexity of the social factors themselves. (Zhu 1990: 48–50) Let’s take some linguistic functionalists’ ideas as the theoretical foundation. 9:2:1:1 Karl Bühler believed that speech act is related to three social factors: addresser, addressee and external situation, which produce the expressive function, vocative function and representational function of language, respectively. The following two figures illustrate the corresponding relations between six social factors and six language functions:

218

9

Functions of Linguistic Signs

contextual information addresser……………………………………………addressee contact code (1) Schema of social factors representational function emotivefunction………………conative function (2) Schema of linguistic functions

Expressive function is achieved by writing in the first person; vocative function in the second and representational function the third. 9:2:1:2 Jakobson holds that there are six instead of three basic factors related to speech act. They are addresser, addressee, message, context, code and contact, which are different from but also related to one another. They influence the emotional function, conative function, poetic function, referential function, metalinguistic function and phatic function of language, respectively. The pictures below show the relationship between the six social factors and the six linguistic functions. context message addresser…………………………………………addressee contact code （1）Schema of social factors

referential function poetic function emotional function………………………conative function phatic function metalinguistic function

（2）Schema of linguistic functions

When it comes to the typical forms of linguistic function, Jakobson thought that the punctuation interjection fulfills emotional function; the imperative sentence, conative function; and the courtesy language, phatic function.

9.2 Social Factors and Formalism

219

9:2:1:3 Influenced by John Firth, Bronisław Malinowski and other Plague School scholars, Halliday attached great importance to the relationship between language and society, believing that language is subject to context—social environment in which the language is used. There are three kinds of contextual factors. (1) Field of discourse: The event unfolded by addressor’s language, the addressor’s intended activity as well as the topic of speech act. There are technical and nontechnical fields of discourse. (2) Tenor of discourse: It can be further divided into personal tenor and functional tenor. The former refers to the relationship between the speakers in a speech act, while the latter refers to the speakers’ intention. (3) Mode of discourse, the media of discourse communication, includes oral and written modes of discourse. The combination of the three factors above generates the functional variant of language—register. As for the relation between contextual factors and linguistic functions, he argued that field of discourse, tenor of discourse and mode of discourse, respectively, dominate the ideational function, interpersonal function and textual function, and he drew a very complicated picture to depict the relation between language and society, part of which is the relation between contextual factors and linguistic functions: Language function

Context factors

Ideational Interpersonal function function

Textual function

field tenor mode

Register

Speaking of the expressive forms of language, Halliday argued that ideational function, interpersonal function and textual function are, respectively, embodied by transitivity system, mood system and thematic system and information system.

220

9.2.2

9

Functions of Linguistic Signs

Formalism and Functionalism

Obviously, functionalism, as academic thinking, includes many schools of thinking. It’s difficult to simply summarize it by the basic presumption or theoretical system. After deeper research, however, we find that every functionalist approach shares the common ground that formalism is the basic reference and opposite side. It’s for this that many linguists draw the landscape of modern linguistics by setting formalism against functionalism and divide all grammatical theories into two categories, i.e., formalism and functionalism. Generally, formalism focuses on describing the characteristics of linguistic forms of a natural language, while functionalism highlights the message-transmission function of linguistic forms. The practitioners of formalism are inclined to pay attention to the ideal linguistic form itself while functionalists are interested in things outside form. They care about certain functions of a certain linguistic form in social communities and focus on the nature that linguistic forms rely on the context instead of focusing on linguistic forms outside the speech and social context. To further distinguish between the two, we may as well introduce American linguist Simon Dik’s thoughts: (See Functional Grammar 1981). Comparison between formalism and functionalism Subjects compared

Formalism

Functionalism

Definition of language Major function of language Mental basis of language Language system and application

Language is the combination of sentences To express ideas

Language is a tool of social communication To carry out communication

Language competence

Communicative ability

Research on linguistic competence prioritized over linguistic performance Description of language be independent from context and situation Children constructing grammar by virtue of natural endowment

Research on language system be firstly within the framework of linguistic performance Their functions in specific context be associated with

Language and context Language acquisition Universal phenomena of language

Deemed as inborn features of human body

Children grasping laws of language acquisition and language application by learning Be explained from three constraints: communicative purpose, mental and physical qualities of language users and environment in which language is used (continued)

9.2 Social Factors and Formalism

221

(continued) Subjects compared

Formalism

Functionalism

Relationship between syntax, semantics and pragmatics

Syntax be independent from semantics; syntax and semantics be independent from pragmatics together. Order of priority: syntax ! semantics ! pragmatics.

Pragmatics as an inclusive framework which should cover research on semantics and syntax. Semantics is subordinate to pragmatics and syntax to semantics. Order of priority: pragmatics ! semantics ! syntax

9.3

Methodologies of the Functionalist Approaches

Although there are various theories and specific methods in functional linguistics, three closely related laws (dislocation, suddenness and holography) and four complementary principles (optimization, hierarchy, instructiveness and incompleteness) are usually followed. (Xu 1990: 23–29).

9.3.1

Three Laws

9.3.1.1

Dislocation

As we know, there never exists any completely objective statements which are apart from the subjective consciousness of language users; referring to terms in literary criticism, we can call this kind of statements which actually are nonexistent as “zero-order text (statement)”. In fact, compared with their corresponding zero-order one, there is more or less deviation in the statements that are used in communication. Functional linguistics aims at studying the reason, degree, methods and effect of the deviation. Since zero-order statement is nonexistent, it is required, for the convenience of research, to take a certain language as the standard basis to study deviation. Take English as an example, it is generally recognized that the natural sentences approximating to zero-order statements are probably arranged as follows: Subject—verb—object (indirect—direct)— adverbial Agent—predicate—destinative Given information—unknown information Definite information—indefinite information Theme—rheme Secondary information—primary information General description—end focus

222

9

Functions of Linguistic Signs

The less important elements in sentences—the important elements in sentences … Each of the above orders may have certain preferential choices. For instance, in the following order where the noun added with a case serves as the subject, sentences are getting farther and farther from their zero-order statements with the case ranging from left to right. Agent—destinative—benefactive—instrumental case—locative case—temporal For another example, the following order indicates that the sentences will be getting farther and farther from their zero-order statements as the listed elements serve as the subject from left to right. Nominal subject—adverbial phrase or clause—nominal object or predicate — nominal attributive—verb

With sentence (7) as a basis, although the cognitive meaning of sentence (8) does not change, deviation really takes place. In the deviated order, some elements seemed to be placed mistakenly, and thus, we call this kind of deviation as dislocation. The interest, motivation, attention, impulsion and emotion in the category of intention can be reflected through dislocation. It is the same with a higher level than sentence, in which dislocation can be used. (9) A: That minister’s report is just so-so, what do you say? B: The weather gets cold. It’s time to put on a coat. B’s answer has completely deviated from what was expected, and even it is a big mistake. However, it is the “dislocation” that indicates what is expected in the irrelevant response. As “dislocation” is such a necessary approach which is able to reflect the language user’s intention, it is defined as a law of functional linguistics, namely “the law of dislocation.” The description of the law is: the normal expression of

9.3 Methodologies of the Functionalist Approaches

223

statements and the specific intention of communication form certain tension which generates dislocation; the larger the dislocation is, the more the special value of communication is until a certain threshold. 9.3.1.2

Suddenness

From the respective of psychology in linguistic performance, the special communicative value formed by “the law of dislocation,” to a large extent, is led by the suddenness caused by the dislocation. The suddenness raises great value of attention and drives people to consciously observe the environment where dislocations occur and then learn a certain intention. What kind of circumstances can raise greater value of attention? Let’s compare the following two sentences. (10) I hope to meet Griselda’s husband someday—Greselda, I hope to meet her husband someday. (11) The word “news” is peculiar in that it is used only in the singular—One peculiarity about the word “news” is that it is used only in the singular. In sentence (10), the original attributive becomes a marked theme through a dislocation to the left, and its value of attention rises greatly. In sentence (11), many elements are changed and an impression of gradual change is formed, which reduces the suddenness and improves readers’ adaption to the words. Despite the comparison between the two sentences, it is concluded that “mutation” seems to create greater value of attention than “gradual change.” Let’s take another example. (12) A: That minister’s report is just so-so, what do you say? B: Oh, are you serious? This…drop it, let’s talk something else. Aha, the weather gets cold, and it’s time to put on a coat. Compared with sentence (9), B’s answer in this sentence is organized accurately. With groundwork, transfer and explanation, B expresses his ideas step by step and finally says “the weather gets cold, and it’s time to put on a coat.” Although B’s answer is unrelated to the question, it doesn’t seem sudden at all; this is a kind of gradual changes and its original signified is attrited in the process. Thus, we obtain another law—the law of suddenness. That is, the obvious dislocation of one or two components in a sentence could better trigger the effect of “suddenness” than the gradual changes of many parts.

9.3.1.3

Holography

The effect of “suddenness” resulting from the “dislocation” of one or two components is not only to attract much attention, but also to unify the various manifestations of the signified. Otherwise, in order to convey the specific statement

224

9

Functions of Linguistic Signs

center where a dislocation occurs, in order to make a better convergence with the above another occurs, and then for the arrangements of known/unknown information there again, and for… To think about each specific intention in isolation and arrange them one by one, and then dislocation occurs again and again, finally, dislocations are bound to develop into wrong sentences, or offset each other, or contradict with each other. Therefore, when considering the dislocation of one or two components, it should be noted that the dislocation of this component can reflect as much information as possible, which requires the skill of dislocation. This is the requirement of the law of holography. The law of holography can be concluded as follows: the components and methods to be dislocated should be selected to reflect all requirements.

9.3.2

Four Principles

9.3.2.1

Optimization

Functional linguistic theory is not primarily to describe or judge if a statement is right or not, but to describe or judge if a statement is applied optimally or not; it is not a theory of seeking truth, but that of achieving optimization. Through related mechanisms, functional linguistics can also give an explanation of the irreceivability of certain sentences with unconventional grammar. But, it is not the ultimate purpose of functional linguistics, even not its main purpose. Functional linguistics primarily aims at explaining what kind of language is the most appropriate to use according to the given situation and how to do it. In communicative language, there never exists the only option like one plus one is two, and right or wrong; there is no absolute good or bad without precondition. Thus, the construction of the functional linguistics theory should be conducive to guide the optimization of linguistic performance.

9.3.2.2

Hierarchy

To achieve “optimization,” when it comes to describing language and proposing the strategy of optimally applying the communicative language, the functional linguistic theory usually does not define what is “right” or “wrong,” but to make a list of hierarchies. It is consistent with the actual situation of language itself. For instance, the nature of the information of theme and rheme may be a variable from the “known” to the “new knowledge”; the statement center also has a hierarchy from a lower degree of significance to a slightly higher degree, a higher degree and the highest degree; when an active sentence is transformed into a passive sentence and a component in the active sentence is used as the subject in the passive sentence, the acceptability of the passive one can also form a hierarchy: direct object > indirect object > adverbial elements like location and tool > adverbial

9.3 Methodologies of the Functionalist Approaches

225

elements like time and adjoint state > adverbial elements like cause, purpose and state. The following hierarchy shows different possibilities as all kinds of components serve as subject and object: Agent > destinative > benefactive > instrumental > location > time (subject) Destinative > benefactive > instrumental > location > time (object) According to this hierarchy, from left to right, the sentences are less and less “general,” and when making sentences, there are more and more restrictions and an increasing need for passive sentences.

9.3.2.3

Instructiveness

From the above two principles, it is observed that functional linguistic theory focuses on providing instructions rather than regulations. Its core strategies are: (1) Providing more principles than rules; (2) Providing more general plans than specific methods; (3) Providing more optional possibilities than only steps.

9.3.2.4

Incompleteness

Functional linguistics does not recognize its theories at any links, any levels, or any subsystems as self-efficient and complete; on the contrary, it admits that “incompleteness” is a characteristic of its theories and claims that any linguistic function systems seeming complete enough are limited and incomplete and need to be complemented by other systems. It should be noted that the incompleteness of theoretical systems is not entirely caused by the “incompleteness” of the theoretical quality of functional linguists, but by the fact that language communication is a matter covering a wide range. Seen horizontally, there are some concepts which are mutually interpreted and restricted at relevant levels; seen vertically, there exists dominant and submissive relationships between levels and the description and analysis of certain problems will involve relevant levels or that with dominant relationships. A deeper cause is that, as for language, a communicative functional system is composed of various means, unobvious regularities and inconclusive problems that appear in part might become regular and conclusive phenomena at a higher level. For example, seen from grammar, noun and pronoun could serve as the subject of sentences. But, it is not so easy for some nouns to serve as the subject; to make an analysis accordingly, semantic mechanism is also required besides grammar

226

9

Functions of Linguistic Signs

mechanism. That is, the possibility of serving as the subject is different as nouns play different roles in a sentence. Take the following two sentences as an example: (13) A red sports car was behind the bus. (14) The bus was in front of a red sports car. According to linguist Randolph Quirk (Quirk 1973: 411), sentence 14 is preferable to 13 because of the subject. Analyzed from the information problem of pragmatic mechanism, sentence constituents are usually organized from the known/ definite to the unknown/indefinite. But, it is just an ideal state. In the practical use of language, many statements do not follow the above order, seeming to manifest a high level of randomness and inconclusiveness; however, seen from a higher level, namely discourse, these sentences might show expected regularities. Some scholars define the three elements of text construction and the different grades that may affect the text: cohesion of ideas < elaboration of thoughts < highlighting the core. When considering the cohesion of ideas, it is very important to draw forth the unknown from the known and transform the unknown into the known in the next sentence; but when it comes to the elaboration of thoughts, especially to highlighting the core, there will be requirement of dislocation for sentences. This demonstrates that in the theories of functional linguistics, subsystems and theories at different levels are of incompleteness to some extent, and they should be mutually complementary.

Chapter 10

The Subjective Approach to Linguistic Signs

“Subject” was originally a philosophical concept. Opposed to object, subject referred to the observer of the objective world. It was later introduced into linguistics to explain similar concepts. It should be noted that the concept of subject has not yet been clearly defined since its introduction into linguistics. Some scholars, from the perspective of logic, take subject as a “logical subject” and claim that it is closely related to one of the two basic elements which help to decide in traditional logic; some, associating subject with traditional grammar, believe it is an element of a situation that a sentence corresponds to, one of the principal components of the two-part sentence —the grammatical subject; still some scholars put the concept of subject into the actual division of sentence and interpret it as a “psychological entity.” They believe that it is a part distinguished from and opposite to rheme, which starts an expression, and linguistic behaviorists also have their own definitions. They hold the view that the subject is the agent and the producer and carrier of an act. Scholars with different standpoints thus produce different interpretations of “subject.” In this chapter, the concept of subject is explored from the perspective of semiotics. It is known that the structure of the natural language is hierarchical, and hierarchy is an essential nature of language. Therefore, to fully understand the concept of subject, the analysis should not be limited to a certain hierarchy. In this regard, theories of semiotics are very helpful. American semiotician Charles Morris claimed that signs have three types of relations: (a) the formal relations of signs to one another. Putting the relationship between language and society as well as the relationship between the sign and the signified aside, it merely studies the relationship between signs with “formal meaning” as the starting point. Such research belongs to syntax (“syntactics” is more scientific and will be used instead below): (b) the relations of signs to the objects to which the signs are applicable. Focusing on the relationship between signs and thinking, it studies the representation of signs with “existential meaning” as the starting point. This type of research is called semantic research: (c) the relations of signs to their interpreters. It studies not only © Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_10

227

228

10 The Subjective Approach to Linguistic Signs

the function of signs to humans, but also the human application and creation of signs. The study with “pragmatism” as its starting point is in the field of pragmatics. The concept of subject is one significant part of language as a hierarchical sign system. According to theories of semiotics, subject can also be put into the study of syntactics, semantics and pragmatics.

10.1

Syntactic Subject

Subject in syntactics can be called “syntactic subject,” which is the content of formal grammar studies. It is generally the same as the grammatical subject in traditional grammar. Many scholars regard subject as an equivalent of the grammatical subject regarding the relationship between the two, for example, Dietmar Elyashevich Rosenthal and Margarita Alekseevna Telenkova claimed that “subject is the same as the grammatical subject.” (Cyбъeкт тo жe, чтo гpaммaтичecкoe пoдлeжaщee.) (Dictionary of Linguistic Terms. Moscow: Education. 1976: 475); Olga Ivanovna Moskalskaya held the same view: “subject, in the sentence component theory, is the same as the grammatical subject.” (Cyбъeкт в yчeнии o члeнax пpeдлoжeния – тo жe, чтo пoдлeжaщee.) (Russian Language. Encyclopedia. Moscow. Soviet encyclopedia. 1979: 340). In this way, subject obtains the same meanings and functions as the grammatical subject, representing the concept of things in a broad sense. It is one of the two principal components in a two-part sentence, which is not attached to the other components of the sentence syntactically, and it is often represented by nouns, pronouns and other word types and phrases, for example, Mы гopды oтeчecтвoм cвoим. (We are proud of our motherland.) Пoeзд пoдoшeл. (The train is approaching.) Утpoмвыпaлпepвыйcнeг. (In the morning, the first snow fell.) Кypeниe вocпpeщaeтcя. (Smoking is prohibited.) Bce yжe cтиxлo в гopoдe. (Everything is quiet in the city.) Бoльнoй нaчaл пoпpaвлятьcя. (The patient began to recover.) Ceмepo oднoгo нe ждyт. (Seven people cannot keep waiting for one.) Учитьcя вceгдa пpигoдитьcя. (Learning is always handy.) Кaждый дeнь y мeня бывaeт нe мeньшe дecяти cтyдeнтoв. (Every day at least 10 students come to me.) (10) Ивaн c Пeтpoм пoшли в caд. (Ivan and Peter went to the garden.) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

It can be seen that the subject in the examples above is determined by viewing the syntactic structure as a pure form. It is true that such practice has played a positive role in school grammar. But it should also be seen that a sentence is a means of forming and conveying thoughts, and the simplest thought is always naturally divided into two parts—the thing and its characteristics, so it is difficult to

10.1

Syntactic Subject

229

complete the description by merely formal means, for example, Boды yбывaeт (Water is decreasing); Oтцy нeздopoвитcя (My father feels sick); Mнe кoня пoить (I have to get the horse to drink). In these sentences, since there are no nominative cases, does it mean they have “no subject” at all? Hence, it is one-sided to understand the syntactic subject simply by “morphism” (мopфoлoгизм) and to entirely understand the syntactic subject we need to resort to semantics.

10.2

Semantic Subject

Subject in semantics is called the “semantic subject,” which is studied in both syntax and semantics. In some cases, it is the same as the grammatical subject, but in many they are distinct from each other. Galina Aleksandrovna Zolotova pointed out when touching upon the sentence structure, “the sentence structure is formed through interactions between two hierarchies. One reflects the relations between the sentence and the objective world, while the other reflects the relations between the sentence and thinking.” (Zolotova, 1982: 24). She actually put forward the principle of “cognitive-appellative function” of language itself and thus defined the decisive effect of content on the form of the language unit. In this way, from the perspective of cognitive function, the relationship between the semantic subject and the predicate that it corresponds to is “determined— determiner” (oпpeдeляeмoe--oпpeдeляющee). If we recognize any thought or any expression concerning it, then we can consider that the semantic subject is the former—the object of thought and is always identified as the determined, for example, (11) Oн paдyeтcя – Oн paд –Eмy paдocтнo – У нeгo paдocть. (He feels happy.) From the perspective of appellative function, the relationship between the semantic subject and the predicate is “the carrier of features—features,” that is, the semantic subject is the carrier of features that the semantic predicate represents. The features here should be understood in a broad sense, as Natalia Yulievna Shvedova said, “Subject is the generator of behavioral state, perception relationship or characteristics.” (12) (13) (14) (15)

Paбoчиecтpoятдoм. (Workers build houses.) Cнимплoxo. (His situation is bad.) Им oвлaдeл cтpax. (Fear seized him.) Eмy нpaвитcя этoт дoм. (He likes this house.)

Certainly, the definitions above of the semantic subject are general. In the following, some special properties and distinctive characteristics of the semantic subject are specifically examined.

230

10 The Subjective Approach to Linguistic Signs

10.2.1 Semantic Subject as A Substance The semantic subject, as the target of thought, should be a substance that can be judged. Specifically, what acts as the semantic subject can be a person, or material or idealistic object.

10.2.2 Coordination of Semantic Subject and Predicate Generally, since subject is the carrier of predicate features, and always identified as the determined, it always denotes relatively specific meanings (often expressed by proper nouns, pronouns and words bearing individual meanings) with less information load (инфopмaтивнaянaгpyзкa); contrary to the subject, the predicate always denotes relatively abstract meanings, therefore it carries more information load. Additionally, seen from the position of semantic structure (пoзиция ceмaнтичecкoй cтpyктypы) (the position of semantic structure is not that of grammatical structure, nor word order, but a deep inferring position of subjective thinking on the semantic subject), the semantic subject should be at the left part of the predicate and embody the intention of that part (лeвaя интeнция пpeдикaтa). For example, (16) Eeoxвaтилoзлopaдcтвo. (She was seized with gloating.) (17) Hacoвeтeoбcyждaлидиccepтaцию. (The thesis was discussed on the council.) (18) Eй былo гpycтнo. (She was sad.)

10.2.3 Distinctions Between Semantic Subject and Syntactic Subject In syntactics, since the grammatical subject (the syntactic subject) and the predicate are the results of segmentation in form of the grammatical structure, the segmentation in the coordination relation between the grammatical subject and the predicate can be objectified in form, that is, it is marked in form (the syntactic subject is generally represented merely by the nominative case). However, the determination of the semantic subject differs. And its segmentation is often associated with the type of information, ultimately the type of thought. The semantic subject embodies the correlation between the content in a sentence and certain logical units. Therefore, the existence of the semantic subject is relevant to the binary segmentation of the sentence’s semantic structure, which might not be objectively represented in form. It possesses diversity in expression, for example,

10.2

Semantic Subject

231

(19) Изнeгoвыpocyчeный. (He became a scientist.) (20) Hикoмy нe cпитcя. (Nobody fell asleep.) (21) Ha этoм чeлoвeкe – ни пятнышкa. (There is no spot on this person.) In addition, the semantic subject and the grammatical subject (the syntactic subject) could be the same, and they too might be different: (22) Bcя cтpaнa гoтoвитcя кпpaздникy. (same) -Пo вceй cтpaнe гoтoвятcя к пpaздникy. (same) (The whole country is preparing for the holiday.) (23) Oнвлиxopaдкe. (same) -Eгo лиxopaдит. (not the same) -У нeгo лиxopaдкa. (He is in malarial fever.)

10.2.4 Semantic Subject with Different Sentence Structures 10.2.4.1 In a bi-nominative sentence (бинoминaтивнoe пpeдлoжeниe)—the subject–predicate sentence consisting of two nouns (or noun phrases), regardless of the word order, the extension of the subject meaning is narrower than the meaning of the predicate. A specific name in no case is the predicate of another noun with broader meanings. (24) Cтpoитeльcтвo мocтa – дeлo вceгдa нeдeшeвoe и xлoпoтнoe. (The construction of a bridge is always an expensive and troublesome business.) (25) Cтoлицa Poccии былa Caнкт-Пeтepбypг. (The capital of Russia used to be St. Petersburg.) (26) Pyкoвoдитeльпpeдпpиятия – Пeтpoв. (The head of the enterprise is Petrov.) 10.2.4.2 In an extended subject–predicate sentence, if there exist two actants that belong to the same conceptual meaning, it is often the case that the semantic subject is presented, in the left part of the predicate, by the elements that occupy the deep-semantic structure: They may reflect the meaning of “positive behavior” (the grammatical subject or the fifth case to express the extended element of the agent); when the meaning is void, they could embody the meaning of “carrier in a powerless state” (often expressed by the governing case), for instance, (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32)

Paбoчиecтpoятдoм. (Workers build houses.) Oкнo paзбитo мaльчикaми. (The window was broken by the kids.) Boлнoй пepeвepнyлo лoдкy. (The wave overturned the boat.) Eгoтoмилaжaждa. (He is too thirsty.) Eгo знoбит. (He is shivering.) Людeй пocтиглa бeдa. (The folks suffered misfortune.)

232

10 The Subjective Approach to Linguistic Signs

10.2.4.3 In non-subject–predicate sentences which have two elements, the meaning of the semantic subject is denoted through elements which bear substantive meaning, for example, (33) Heвecтe идeт нapядитьcя. (Dressing up suits the bride.) (34) Haчaльcтвy oпaздывaть нe гoдитcя. (It’s inappropriate for leaders to be late.) (35) Бoльнoмy нe cпитcя. (The patient cannot sleep.) (36) Извecтий нeт. (There is no news.) 10.2.4.4 In some non-extended sentences with single element, the meaning of the semantic subject is indicated in the element that represents predicate features (the subject and the predicate are considered the same, such as Дoждь/rain/ = Идeт дoждь/it’s raining/). The construction of such sentence does not undermine the original deep structure of thought (the thing—features), that is, its deep structure is still twofold, such as (Cтoит)Жapa/(it’s) hot/; (Люди)Шyмят/(people) noise/; Hи звyкa(нe cлышнo)/no sound(is heard)/. 10.2.4.5 In some noun sentences with a single element, the subject of a specific act or a state is often demonstrated by subordinators, such as (37) Ccopa мeждy дpyзьями. (A quarrel between friends.) (38) Гyдoк aвтoмoбиля. (The whistle of the car.) 10.2.4.6 In an extended non-subject–predicate sentence, the semantic subject is often represented by various qualifiers. There are two cases: One is a qualifier with a specific meaning that qualifies the whole sentence (the complement in the traditional grammar), for example, (39) (40) (41) (42)

Дeтям xoлoднo. (Children are cold.) У нeгo нe c кeм пoгoвopить. (He has no one to talk to.) C бaбyшкoй плoxo. (The grandmother is bad.) Для бoльнoгo здecь шyмнo. (For the patient, it is noisy.)

The other case is that there is no such item with specific meaning in a sentence, but a transformation process from abstract meanings to concrete meanings, and thus the subject often carries sparse meanings (corresponding to the adverbial modifier in traditional grammar), for instance, (43) B зeмeльнoм yпpaвлeнии бoдpo. (In the land administration, everyone is cheerful.) (44) Co cтopoны cмeшнo. (From the bystander, it’s funny.) (45) Ha coбpaнии peшeнo. (At the meeting, it was decided.)

10.2

Semantic Subject

233

10.2.5 Types of Semantic Subject In general, semantic subjects are classified into different types according to the relationship between the subject and the predicate. 10.2.5.1 The subject, the substance from which the feature emanates (cyбcтaнция, oт кoтopoй иcxoдит пpизнaк), exerts a positive influence on the predicate. The subject in this relationship is called the agentive subject (cyбъeкты – aгeнcы), which can be further divided into (1) agentive subject (aгeнтивный); (2) emotive subject (эмoтивный) and (3) perceptive subject (пepцeптивный), i.e., (46) Oни oбмeнилиcь oпытoм. –Был cдeлaн oбмeн oпытoм мeждy ними. (agentive subject) (They exchanged experience.) (47) Этoт cтapик любит cвoю Poдинy. (emotive subject) (This old man loves his homeland.) (48) У нeгo вoзниклo пoдoзpeниe в иcкpeннocти ee чyвcтв. (emotive subject) (He had a suspicion of the sincerity of her feelings.) (49) Bы нe yвидитe тaкиx cpaжeний. – Baм нe yвидeть тaкиx cpaжeний. (perceptive subject) (You will not see such battles.) 10.2.5.2 The subject, as a substance that is affected, passively accepts the influence from the predicate, (cyбcтaнция, иcпытывaющaя вoздeйcтвиe). The subject in this instance is known as the recipient subject (cyбъeкты - пaциeнcы), for instance, (50) Eгo oxвaтилa тocкa. (He was overcome with longing.) (51) Oн paнeн. (He’s hurt.) (52) Дoм yжe пocтpoeн. (The house has already been built.) 10.2.5.3 The relationship between the subject and the predicate is not positive or passive, and there is no signal of posing or accepting influence. The subject and the predicate are interrelated: the existence value of one is to determine the features, and the existence of the other is to limit the feature bearer. The subject in this case is known as a determinant (cyбъeкты- дeтepминaты), which can be divided into (1) stative subject (cтaтyaльный); (2) qualitative subject (квaлитaтивный); (3) possessive subject (пoceccивный) and (4) existential subject (экзиcтeнциaльный). (53) Oн иcпытывaeт зaмepзaниe oбeиx pyк. – У нeгo зaмepзaниe oбeиx pyк. (stative subject) (He feels freezing in both hands.) (54) Cecтpoйoвлaдeлaтpeвoгa. – вcecтpeбылaтpeвoгa. (stative subject) (My sister was seized with anxiety.) (55) Бpaт мoлчaлив. – Бpaтa oтличaeт мoлчaливocть. – Для бpaтa типичнa мoлчaливocть. – Бpaтy cвoйcтвeннa мoлчaливocть. (qualitative subject) (The brother is silent.) (56) Oнaимeeтxopoшийгoлoc. – Унeexopoшийгoлoc. (possessive subject) (She has a good voice.)

234

10 The Subjective Approach to Linguistic Signs

(57) Cлoвapянeимeeтcя. (existential subject) (There is no dictionary.) (58) Фyтбoлиcтoв – тыcяч. (existential subject) (Footballers—thousands)

10.3

Pragmatic Subject

The subject in pragmatics is called “pragmatic subject,” which is the content of communicative grammar, especially discourse linguistics. Pragmatics differs from semantics. Generally, the latter is called logical semantics which studies the meanings of words and sentences, analyzes the relationship between signs and the signified and discusses the true and the false conditions of propositions. When it comes to the concept of subject, semantics is used to deduce the meaning of a sentence from the deep thought on the basis of the sentence’s own conditions. So to speak, the meaning studied in semantics is the cognitive meaning of a sentence, which is independent on context. Pragmatics also studies meaning, but it is the meaning of utterance; pragmatics studies conditions as well, but what it studies are appropriate conditions associated with society, psychology, communication and others, which are used to deliver information. Therefore, what pragmatics studied concerning meaning is the meaning of discourse act, which can only be determined in context, and the subject it studies is a deeper subject. Pragmatic subjects can be classified into the following three types.

10.3.1 The Psychological Subject The subject is clearly defined in the Russian Language Encyclopedia: “in the theory of actual division of the sentence, the psychological subject is the same as the theme.” (B тeopии aктyaльнoгo члeнeния пpeдлoжeния cyбъeкт пcиxoлoгичecкий – тo жe, чтo тeмa.) (Russian language. Encyclopedia, Moscow. 1979: 340). In actual division of a sentence, it makes sense to equate the subject with the theme. It is known that actual division is in the field of discourse linguistics, and an important feature of discourse linguistics is its emphasis on the study of functions, premises and conditions of discourse communication. It does not take an isolated sentence as its main study target, but analyzes the super-sentences in consecutive language materials to explore the law of parole. In discourse linguistics, a sentence is divided based on the coherence of the narrative and the delivery of information. According to the theory of actual division, most sentences consist of two parts: the theme (тeмa)—the rheme (peмa). The former, indicating given information, refers to the starting point, the basis or object of a narrative while the latter refers to the core of a narrative and represents new information, for example.

10.3

Pragmatic Subject

10.3.1.1

235

The Theme Stands for the Object of a Narrative

(59) Boздyx(theme)//cвeж и пpoзpaчeн(rheme). (The air is fresh and transparent.) (60) Пoбeдa (theme)//дaeткpылья(rheme). (Victory gives the wings.)

10.3.1.2

The Theme Represents the Starting Point or the Basis of a Narrative

(61) B лecy(theme)//cыpo, xoлoднo(rheme). (The forest is damp and cold.) (62) Ha нeбe(theme)//нe былo ни oднoгo oблaчкa(rheme). (In the sky, there was not a single cloud.)

10.3.1.3

The Theme Indicates Given Information

(63) (—Кyдaвыxoдятoкнa?) (Where do the windows go?) —Oкнa выxoдят(theme)//нa мope(rheme). (The windows overlook the sea.) (64) (—ктo вaм любимый пиcaтeль?) (Who is your favorite writer?) —Moй любимый пиcaтeль(theme)//—M. Гopький(rheme). (My favorite writer —M. Gorky.) Obviously, the division of the theme and the rheme is like two elements of human thoughts, that is, the division, based on “things—features,” is still in a “determined–determining” relationship. When the theme represents the object in a narrative, the rheme correspondingly indicates description of the object; when the theme represents the starting point or the basis of the narrative, the rheme then indicates the core of the narrative; when the theme represents given information, the rheme reveals new information on the basis of the given information. In short, the characteristic of the pragmatic subject is that it rests closely on the situation, and it is the result that the user of the language sign has recognized psychologically. Actual division is distinct from sentence composition analysis. The latter is a structural analysis method primarily examining grammatical morphemes and syntactic functions of word classes and analyzing grammatical relations of words in a sentence, while the former is a functional analysis approach, which chiefly studies the structure of coherent discourse and analyzes the internal relations between sentences in discourse. Actual division differs from semantic analysis too. The approach that divides a sentence into two parts (the theme—the rheme) is to focus on the synchrony and linear sense of the sentence; however, semantic analysis of sentence focuses on the formation and development of symbolic meaning in languages and describes the outcomes, with the study on characteristics of human cognition from a diachronic and nonlinear perspective.

236

10 The Subjective Approach to Linguistic Signs

10.3.2 The Message Sender The message sender (cyбъeкт aвтopизaции) is the person who sends out a message, for example, Cтaтья пoлeзнa (The article is useful). It is an isolated sentence, and it’s hard to tell who sends out the message. But when putting the sentence into a discourse, it is likely to know from the speech situation that the message comes from “he,” in such case the underlying subject can be explored, for instance, (65) (66) (67) (68)

Для нeгo cтaтья пoлeзнa. (For him, the article is useful.) Oн cчитaeт, чтo cтaтья пoлeзнa. (He considers that the article is useful.) Cтaтья пpeдcтaвляeтcя eмy пoлeзнoй. (The article seems useful to him.) Oн cчитaeт cтaтью пoлeзнoй. (He considers the article useful.)

Pragmatic studies of the message sender are frequently applied in the analysis of literary works and the generation and transformation of sentences. Zolotova (Зoлoтoвa) once compared the function of the message sender to the names of interlocutors in the brackets in a script or the relationship between the author’s words and direct speech. Please compare the two sentences below: (69) [Ивaнoв:] Cтaтья пoлeзнa. ([Ivanov:] The article is useful.) (70) Ивaнoв гoвopит: Cтaтья пoлeзнa. (Ivanov says: “The article is useful.”) It is often the case that the message sender clarifies the underlying meanings of a sentence, and it is categorized into three types: 10.3.2.1 Message source which introduces the subject’s qualifying (aвтopизaция, ввoдящaя cyбъeкт квaлифициpyющий) (71) Oнa – cпocoбный инжeнep. – Ha eгo взгдяд (B eгo пpeдcтaвлeнии) oнa – cпoбoбный инжeнep. (In his opinion/in his presentation, she is a capable engineer.) (72) Tвoй пpиeзд – бoльшoe coбытиe. – Кaк eмy кaжeтcя (Oн дyмaeт, чтo) твoй пpиeзд – бoльшoe coбытиe. (It seems to him (He thinks that) your arrival is a great event.) (73) Cecтpa – кpacaвицa.—Oн вocпpинимaeт cecтpy кaк кpacaвицy. (He perceives his sister as a beauty.) The message sender under no circumstance is represented by words alone. It is often denoted with the help of phrases (preposition combinations), main clauses and especially some specific verbs that are relevant to the meanings of the subject. Common verbs of the message sender are cчитaть (-cя)/consider, пpизнaть(-cя)/ admit, нaзывaть(-cя)/call, xapaктepизoвaть/characterize, paccмaтpивaть/to view, квaлифициpoвaть/qualify, oцeнивaть/measure, пoнимaть/understand, вocпpинимaть/perceive, нaxoдить/find, видeть/see, пpeдcтaвлятьcя/be, кaзaтьcя/ seem and so on.

10.3

Pragmatic Subject

237

10.3.2.2 Message source which introduces the subject of perception. (aвтopизaция, ввoдящaя cyбъeкт вocпpиятия) (74) Зa зaбopoм клeн. – Зa зaбopoм мнe видeн клeн. (Behind the fence, I see the maple.) (75) Плaчeт peбeнoк. – Oн cлышит, чтo плaчeт peбeнoк. (He hears a child crying.) (76) Pacтeт интepec к пoэзии – Mы нaблюдaeм pacтyший интepec к пoэзии. (We are seeing a growing interest in poetry.) Common verbs of the subject of perception are видeть/see, cлышaть/hear, нaблюдaть/observe, чyвcтвoвaть/feel, oщyщaть/sense, etc. 10.3.2.3 Message source which introduces the subject of detection (aвтopизaция, ввoдящaя cyбъeкт oбнapyжeния) (77) Oнa нepaздeтaя в лиxopaдкe, в cлeзax. –Я нaшeл ee нepaздeтoю в лиxopaдкe, в cлeзax. (She is undivided in a fever, in tears—I found her undivided in a fever, in tears.) (78) Жeнa былa в cильнoм нepвoм вoзбyждeнии. – Лaптeв зacтaл жeнy в cильнoм нepвнoм вoзбyждeнии. (The wife was in a strong nervous excitement—Laptev found his wife in a strong nervous excitement.) Common verbs of subject of detection are нaxoдить/find, иcкaть/look for, видeть/see, зacтaть/catch, oбнapyжить/discover, etc.

10.3.3 The Speaker “I think, therefore I am” is a philosophical proposition by Descartes. There now is a similar proposition in linguistics. “I speak, therefore I am.” That means the “I” is with the speech, which is always reflected in the discourse directly or indirectly, for example, (79) Cкyкa и штaмпы yбивaли пpaвильныe мыcли и вepныe кoнцeпции дpaмaтypгoв. (Boredom and inflexibility killed the right thoughts and faithful concepts of playwrights.) In the sentence, the words “right” and “faithful” indicate the presence of the speaker who agrees with the statement that “boredom and inflexibility killed the thoughts of playwrights.” пpaвильныe (right) and вepныe (faithful) are embodiments of the speaker as the subject, by which the speaker reflects a certain reality and gives the sentence specific meaning—to present the purpose and intent of the speech act, and to indicate the trustworthiness, value assessment of and attitude toward the statement. In Russian linguistics, these aspects are called subjective modality.

238

10 The Subjective Approach to Linguistic Signs

In official document language, scientific and technical language, even the language of literature and art, the real subject of a speech act might be intentionally covered, the image of the author is likely to be erased, and the speaker tries to create such an impression—no personal feelings or opinions seemingly are put into. But in fact, the speaker of the utterance is ubiquitous theoretically; it is implicit or explicit. Please observe the underlined parts which show us the intermediary role played by the speaker in the following sentences. (80) Иcкyccтвo aктepa, пoжaлyй, caмoe cyбъeктивнoe из вcex. (The art of the actor is perhaps the most subjective of all.) (81) Пocпpaвeдливoмyзaмeчaниюкpитикaaвтopкнигивoмнoгиxмecтaxпpo тивopeчитcaмoмyceбe. (According to the critic’s just comment, the author of the book contradicts himself in many places.) 82) Bpядлиecтьaчтo-н. пpиятнeeвжизни, чeмcпycкaниeнaвoдyтoлькoчтoc дeлaннoйлoдки. (It is unlikely that there is anything more pleasant in life than launching a boat just made.) The analysis of the speaker as the subject is one of the important tasks of speech research. Vladimir Andreevich Zvegintsev called abstract sentences with no speakers as pseudo-sentences (пceвдoпpeдлoжeниe) which only have class meaning, quasi-meaning or pseudo-sense. (Sentence and Its Relation to Language and Speech. Moscow. 1976: 185–200). So to a certain extent, a sentence that the speaker says to achieve specific intent under a specific context is a real one and the pragmatic meaning given by the speaker is the true meaning of the discourse. Through the analysis of the subject in the linguistic sign, the following conclusions are drawn: The syntactics, the semantics and the pragmatics are different but correlated. The analysis would be vague if we do not distinguish them. If we analyze them in isolation and ignore close relations among them, conclusions would be one-sided. Therefore, when studying the linguistic sign, analysis should be conducted from three different aspects. For example, whether a sentence is qualified or unqualified, the first is to check whether words are properly arranged in syntactics, the second is to see whether words are reasonably collocated in semantics, and the third is to test whether words are appropriately used in pragmatics. Only if a sentence meets the three conditions above can it be a correct one; otherwise, it might be an incorrect sentence. In short, the three aspects should be taken into account in the study, integrating form with meaning, statics with dynamics and descriptiveness with practicality. Only in this way can the study of linguistic signs be more comprehensive, systematic and scientific.

Chapter 11

The Dual Metaphorical View of Linguistic Signs

The “dual metaphorical view” stands for “metaphor” and “metonymy,” two important rhetoric concepts in linguistics. These two concepts will be studied and understood in a semiotic approach, among others. Strictly speaking, “metaphor” and “metonymy” belong to traditional rhetoric, and they have been studied as the key rhetorical devices by linguists. In recent years, however, the two concepts have exerted a greater influence on linguistics and other fields due to their unique causations and functions, and the metaphor has received particularly wide attention of rhetoricians. Moreover, the study of metaphor has also attracted lots of semanticists, cognitive linguists and philosophers, creating a metaphoric revolution worldwide. There is no doubt that “metaphor” plays an important role in rhetoric. It is “one of the most splendid and indispensable rhetoric devices” (Giovanni Battista Vico), even to the point that “when it comes to metaphor, it stands for all the complexity of rhetoric activities” (Umberto Eco). Meanwhile, it should be noted that the study of “metonymy” should not be ignored, because both metaphor and metonymy are essentially metaphorical ways that directly state one thing is another thing, and, to a certain extent, they can be taken as two aspects of one thing. Studies have shown that metaphor and metonymy belong to a unity of opposites which are mutually connected, with common features in position value, substitution, meaning transfer, placement as well as apparent differences in psychological noumenon, axial relationships, syntactic features, functional characteristics and causes of formation. To know about its common features, distinguish its differences and combine multi-disciplinary theories with realistic analysis can deepen our understanding of the two concepts. This chapter aims to provide a new research method to and supply basic materials for linguistic studies by combining the two concepts and analyzing their features from the perspectives of semiotics and other aspects.

© Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_11

239

240

11.1

11

The Dual Metaphorical View of Linguistic Signs

Common Features of Metaphor and Metonymy

The reasons for taking metaphor and metonymy as two aspects of one thing are that there are many tie-points between them, and from the perspective of rhetoric, both of them are rhetorical devices which use the target to replace the tenor without identifying the tenor. But such rhetoric analysis cannot reach the essence of metaphor and metonymy, so we need to make further explorations as followings:

11.1.1 Equivalence Different from the “equivalence” in mathematics, here it means an equivalence of status in rhetoric. In the process of semantic realization, both in metaphor and metonymy, a new object (target) independent from the tenor appears uniquely, and this object has the equivalent status in rhetoric comparing with the tenor which acts as the subject of rhetorical device. For example, (1) The ghosts, jackals and wolves will run wild when you feel sad. (2) The “Big eyes” stood guard on the hill for a whole night. In sentence (1), “ghosts” and “jackals and wolves” are used to compare to “cruel and evil enemies,” that is, “ghosts” and “jackals and wolves” are equivalent with “enemies” in essence of the poet’s mind. In sentence (2), “the soldier with big eyes” is replaced by “Big eyes,” because their features are equivalent.

11.1.2 Substitution Substitution refers to replacement, which is the essential feature of metaphor and metonymy. Language studies show that in the structure of linguistic signs, certain arrangements constitute a certain meaning, and under such arrangements, there are often one or more parallel meaning structures corresponding to them, which form a “vertical” structure. In this structure, substitutions can be generated on the basis of “similar” features, thus forming metaphors. (3) звyк aплoдиcмeнтoв (the sound of applause)—гpoм aплoдиcмeнтoв (thunderous applause—metaphor): (4) Ha двope пpишлa вecнa. (Spring has arrived outdoors.)—Ha двope кипeлa вecнa. (Springtime bloomed outside—metaphor). It is also possible to generate substitutions on the basis of similar features, thereby forming metonymies.

11.1

Common Features of Metaphor and Metonymy

241

(5) aмepикaнcкoe пpaвитeльcтвo (American government)—Бeлый дoм (the White House—metonymy); (6) чeлoвeк c бopoдoй (a man with full beard)—Бopoдa cтoит y вopoт oтeля (A full beard stands at the gate of a hotel—metonymy). It is to be noted that, however, neither metaphor nor metonymy is a simple mechanical substitution, and both of them can clearly enhance the expressive force of language.

11.1.3 Transfer In semiotics, “transfer” means the semantic transferring from the signs being used on-site to the off-site, unused ones. Such “transfer” can be understood in terms of meaning, commonly referred to as “meaning transfer,” which constitutes another feature of the metaphor and metonymy. The usages of metaphor are similar to the alienated, artificial and extended usages of the linguistic signs. However, all these are possible only if one linguistic sign has its own-semantic paradigm. Therefore, “transfer” can be regarded as the “vertical transfer of meaning.” Take the adjective “жeлeзный” as an example, excepting the direct meaning “iron-like,” it has its own-semantic paradigm consisted of extended meanings (strong, firm, unshakable…), which make the usages of metaphor possible. (7) жeлeзнoe здopoвьe (strong body)—жeлeзнaя вoля (firm will)—жeлeзнaя лoгикa (unshakable philosophy); Likewise, the noun “шляпa (hat)” has its own transfer meanings (idiot, loser) extending on its vertical axis, which make the following example of metaphor work: (8) Moй бpaт вeл ceбя вчepa кaк нacтoящaя шляпa. (My brother behaved like a real idiot yesterday.) The usages of metonymy are similar to the habitual and conventional usages of linguistic signs. And all these are possible only if one linguistic sign has its own collocations which are commonly used by people. In this circumstance, an “equivalent” relationship between the sign and its collocations is gradually established, which forms the “horizontal transfer of the meaning.” For example, the existence of collocations like “кyшaть чтo нa тapeлкe (eat on a plate…), тapeлкa cyпa (a plate of soup) and тapeлкa c xлeбoм (a plate of bread)” makes the examples of metonymy work in the following sentence: (9) Hy, cкyшaй жe eщe тapeлoчкy, мoй милый! (Well, one more plate, my dear!)

242

11

The Dual Metaphorical View of Linguistic Signs

11.1.4 Misplacement From the perspective of combinations, both metaphor and metonymy are unusual collocations, that is, a kind of semantic misplacement. The appearance of such rhetoric devices “disrupts” its related context network, forming a kind of surface deviation. But from the inside of the paradigm, both metaphor and metonymy substitutions have certain necessary connections with usual collocations, which are completely justified. “Category misplacement” as a result of metaphor often relies on similarity to trigger association, thus “changing” misplacement into a normal collocation. The importance of metaphor lies in the creation of meaning—it destroys the original logic order just to create a new order, provide new information and redescribe certain “phenomenon.” For example, the adjective “ocтpый” means “sharp,” and its usual collocations are nouns representing “objects with tip angles or cutting edges,” like ocтpый нoж (a sharp knife), ocтpый кaмeнь (a sharp stone) and ocтpыe кoгти (sharp talons). Many of the unusual collocations of the word, however, constitute a metaphor as following: (10) ocтpыe глaзa (sharp eyes)—ocтpый yм (sharp mind)—ocтpый пepeц (spicy peppers)—ocтpый yкcyc (sour vinegar)—ocтpaя paдocть (keen joy)— ocтpый нeдocтaтoк (acute shortage). On the other hand, “category misplacement” as a result of metonymy often relies on the close association between the real object (American government) and its “proximate” substitution (White House—the American government’s location), thus “changing” misplacement into a normal collocation. The main purpose of metonymy destroying the original order is not to create new meaning (which may be included), but to achieve the effect of simplification and visualization. (11) Mимo Дyняшки шли кeпки и кocынки, шинeли и cпeцoвки, шapфы и шapфики. (Dounia Schka walked past caps and triangle scarfs, military coats and work clothes, big scarfs and small scarfs.)

11.2

Difference Features of Metaphor and Metonymy

Chinese linguist Professor Hua Shao believes that “we should regard all kinds of metaphorical rhetoric as continuous systems that are both different and interrelated, while metaphor and metonymy, as two poles of a continuous system, are different from each other or even oppose each other in some aspects.” (Hua 1996: 11) Distinctive features between metaphor and metonymy are mainly shown in the following aspects.

11.2

Difference Features of Metaphor and Metonymy

243

11.2.1 “Similarity” Versus “Proximity” From the perspective of neuroscience, the difference between metaphor and metonymy is the difference between “similarity” and “proximity.” This conclusion was made by linguist Roman Jakobson (1896–1982) through observing aphasic patients. From aphasic patients’ speech acts, he found that there were disorders happening to two types of language relations, which were respectively about “similarity” and “proximity,” and the two disorders were closely related to the two rhetorical devices of “metaphor” and “metonymy.” In his famous essay Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances, Jakobson pointed that “the development of a discourse may take place along two different semantic lines: one topic may lead to another either through their similarity or through their contiguity. The metaphoric way would be the most appropriate term for the first case and the metonymic way for the second, since they find their most condensed expression in metaphor and metonymy respectively.” (Jakobson 1956: 90) Terence Hawkes had given two examples: “A car moves like a beetle.” “The White House is drafting a new policy.” (Hawkes 1987: 76) The first sentence is using metaphor, which is based on the similarity between the real object (moving car) and its substitution (moving beetle), and the second sentence is using metonymy, which is based on the real object (president) and its “proximal” substitution (president’s living place).

11.2.2 “Vertical” Versus “Horizontal” From the perspective of two language axes, the relationship between metaphor and metonymy is a typical binary opposition. As Ferdinand de Saussure said, specific utterances (information) are the combinations of various factors which are chosen from all factors (codes), that is, the information is created from the combination of “vertical movement” and “horizontal movement.” The two movements are different. “Vertical movement” chooses specific words to work from the existing word-stock or “internal storage” of a language, while “horizontal movement” combines these words. The paradigmatic process is presented in similarity (a word or concept and another word or concept are “similar”), and its approach is thus metaphorical, i.e., choosing similar objects. For example, “A 17-year-old girl looks like a beautiful flower” can be expressed as “A 17-year-old girl is a beautiful flower.” The two sentences appear in a symbol rank with a paradigmatic relationship, which are the result of weighing words on the axis of selection. The syntagmatic process is presented in proximity (namely put one word beside another word), and its approach is thus metonymic, i.e., stating related concepts. For example, in Russian, the phrase “чepныe бoтинки (black boots)” is used to call “чeлoвeк в чepныx бoтинкax” (a man in black boots), and “cтapaя шляпa” (an old hat) is often to substitute “чeлoвeк в cтapoй шляпe” (a person in an old hat).

244

11

The Dual Metaphorical View of Linguistic Signs

Apparently, the two groups of expressions appear in a symbol rank with a syntagmatic relationship, which are the embodiment of sign simplification and the product of condensing words on the axis of combination. Based on Saussure’s theory, Jakobson points out that the opposition of metaphor and metonymy is, in essence, the opposition of synchronic (direct, coexistent, vertical) and diachronic (sequential, successive, linearly developed) modes of language, and they can be manifested as two basic directions: (paradigm, synchronicity, metaphor, similarity)

(syntagm, diachronism, metonymy, proximity)

11.2.3 “Same Position” Versus “Different Position” From the perspective of the syntactic relationship, the difference between the two rhetorical devices is also obvious. Jerzy Kurylowicz, a Poland linguist, has pointed out that metaphor means interchanging words that appear in the same syntactic position. For example, the Russian word гycь (goose) can refer to a fat and slow-moving person and пeтyx (rooster) a belligerent man. By contrast, metonymy usually means changing the original syntactic status while using one word to replace another sign. For example, (12) Boшли в кoмнaтy oчки. (Some spectacles walked into the room.) In the above example, the modifier oчки (spectacles) becomes the subject instead of the original modified component люди в oчкax. According to the traditional structuralist view, in metaphor, target and tenor perform the same syntactic functions. They can appear in the same position, and thus are mutually exclusive, so there is no need to change their syntactic status. In metonymy, however, tenor should have appeared in the context to combine with other words, so it is necessary for the target to change its syntactic position frequently.

11.2.4 “Descriptive Function” Versus “Referential Function” From the perspective of functions, the two rhetorical devices are opposite to each other in terms of both communicative function and syntactic function. Taking nouns as an example, the main communicative function of nouns which used in

11.2

Difference Features of Metaphor and Metonymy

245

metaphor is their descriptive function, that is, to describe things represented by other nouns with their characteristics. For example, (13) Этa жeнщинa—нacтoящaя cвинья. (This woman is a real pig.) The metaphor “cвинья” (pig) here means “a messy person.” In contrast, the basic communicative function of nouns in metonymy is designation, that is, to use one thing to express the meaning of and replace another relative thing. (14) Этo дeлo пopaзилo вecь клacc. (This matter shocked the whole class.) “вecь клacc” here replaces “the whole class,” playing a referential role. The syntactic function is closely related to the communicative function. The descriptive function of metaphor determines that it is often used as a predicate to present the features of predicate (such as нacтoящaя cвинья). On the other hand, the designative function of metonymy suggests that it is mainly employed to perform the role of actant (aктaнт), that is, to be syntactically used as a subject or complement (such as oчки, вecь клacc). If summarized in the Chinese grammar, the syntactic function of metaphor emphasizes on performing as predicate and that of metonymy focuses on designation.

11.2.5 “Simile Reduction” Versus “Discourse Reduction” As the principles of composition show, there are also many differences between “simile reduction” and “discourse reduction.” Metaphor is based on similarity and originated from simile reduction, and its principles are rather subjective. The connection between target and tenor is often virtual and can be represented by X (seems, кaкecлибы) = Y, which means metaphor usually features factors such as personal imagination, national culture and social values. For example, “ишaк” (mule) means “fool, stubborn person” in many languages, but in some languages in Central Asia, it means “hard-working person.” In Russian, when зaяц (rabbit) means “coward,” it can be accepted by many foreigners; but when it means “ticket evader” or “light spot of the sun,” it becomes hard to understand and imagine. In contrast, metonymy is based on proximity and originated from coherent discourse reduction. The principles of metonymy are objective to a certain extent, and the connection between target and tenor is usually real. That is to say, its principles are based on the real connection between the object and the phenomenon. For example, the words cливa, дepeвня and бpoнзa all have two different meanings: plum tree or plum, village or villager and bronze or bronze ware, and the relationships between each two meanings can be represented by X(imply) ! Y. In general, due to the mutual repulsion between rigid rules and vivid imaginations, metaphorical representations are difficult to compare with rules, and to create and understand metaphors depends on imagination, intuition and even inspiration. There are, however, certain rules for metonymy. Through the real connection between X and Y, we can

246

11

The Dual Metaphorical View of Linguistic Signs

capture the semantic changes of words and the rules of lexical–semantic categories. In other words, the composition and interpretation of metonymy require life experience, scientific knowledge and logical reasoning.

11.3

Representations of Metaphor and Metonymy

11.3.1 Representations of Metaphor From the perspective of linguistic semiotics, metaphor as a form of symbolic expression is first and foremost a linguistic phenomenon, and we can classify it into various categories according to different standards.

11.3.1.1

Grammar

From the perspective of grammar, metaphor can be divided into nominal metaphor (like змeя (snake)—o злoм и язвитeльнoм чeлoвeкe (evil and venomous man)), verbal metaphor (like тaнцeвaть (dancing)—Удapeниe тaнцyeт (losing the balance)), adjective metaphor (like кpeпкий (hard)—кpeпкий coн (deep sleep)) and adverbial metaphor (like тяжeлo (heavily)—тяжeлo излaгaть (hard to express)), etc.

11.3.1.2

Semantics

From the aspect of semantics, metaphor can be divided into rational metaphor (like нoжкa cтoлa (table leg)、кopeнь cлoвa (root of the word)), characteristic associative metaphor and psychological associative metaphor (examples are as follows). (15) Инcapoв был пacмypeн в тeчeниe вceгo вeчepa. (Insarov was depressed all night.) (16) Oблaкa тяжeлo тянyлиcь oкoлo чepныx вepшин. (Low clouds covered the black mountains.)

11.3.1.3

Categorization

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson believe that the essence of metaphor is to understand and experience one kind of thing in terms of another. They hereby divide metaphor into spatial metaphor, ontological metaphor and structural metaphor.

11.3

Representations of Metaphor and Metonymy

247

The spatial metaphor is a metaphor in which cognitive subjects use and extend the concept of spatial categories to construct the concept of other empirical categories. For example, (17) (18) (19) (20)

I’m feeling up. The price has come down. His health is declining. My spirits rose.

The ontological metaphor is a metaphor in which cognitive subjects conceptualize and categorize the abstract, ambiguous, invisible and elusive objects, which include thoughts, emotions, mental activities, events and statuses, etc., by referring to specific tangible objects. (21) Beijing, an increasingly modern city, is walking toward us. (22) He went nonstop to the next goal like a busy ant. The structural metaphor is a metaphor in which one concept is metaphorically structured in terms of another. For example, time, debates and thoughts can be metaphorically categorized into money, wars and physical objects, and we can give the characteristics of the latter to the former and use the latter to describe the former. Besides, in the field of art, the function of metaphor cannot be ignored either. In poem, expression methods represented by repetitions of same or similar elements (alliteration, rhyme, homophones, synonyms) and contrast variations (rhythm, antonym) are a kind of metaphor. In terms of literary trends, romanticism and symbolism focus on metaphor; here we can also put Russian lyric songs, surrealist paintings, Charlie Chaplin’s films (whose overlapping fading effects belong to real cinematic metaphor) and Freud’s dream symbols, etc., into the category of metaphor. Take novels as an example. The functions of metaphor the role of metaphor is basically reflected at three levels. (Yu and Ye 1988: 200) The first level is the overall symbolic system of a novel. It means that the true meaning of a novel exists not only in literary words, but also in the overall image. Such novels are commonly referred to as allegorical novels. For example, in The Old Man and the Sea, Ernest Hemingway tells a simple story of an old man fishing while expressing a profound philosophy of life—it is human’s fight against misfortune and eternality’s fight against finiteness; in this fight, a human being truly shows his own value and dignity. Another example is the modern American writer William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury. In this novel, judging from literal words, Faulkner only writes about the daily routines of a family in the southern USA. If we can grasp the overall symbolic system of the novel and metaphors set by the author, however, we can gain a profound understanding that it not only presents the decline of a family but also digs deep into human nature. The second level is the metaphorical role played by the plot structure of a novel. In 1976, American sinologist Andrew Plaks published a monograph entitled Archetype and Allegory in the Dream of the Red Chamber, analyzing the

248

11

The Dual Metaphorical View of Linguistic Signs

metaphorical role of the plot structure in Dream of the Red Chamber. He believes that the Yin-Yang Dualism and the Theory of Five the Elements are the basic cosmological concepts in ancient Chinese culture, which is exactly the same metonymy used in the structure of the novel. He uses two phrases to summarize the structural features of the book: “complementary bipolarity” and “multiple periodicity,” of which the former corresponds to the Yin-Yang Dualism and the latter to the Theory of Five Elements. For example, in Dream of Red Chamber, Lin Daiyu is characterized as wood, Xue Baochai as metal and Jia Baoyu as earth. Plaks believes that this is not only for paving the way for “the false match of wood and earth” and “the harmonious union of gold and earth,” but also for presenting the complex plot: As the novel explains, Daiyu is a kind of tender flower characterized as wood and thriving in water, but when summer comes, the tender flower cannot adapt itself to the hot weather, and when autumn comes, Daiyu becomes ill and lies dying. Plaks believes that Daiyu’s life represents a complete cycle of “spring”—birth, growth and death, which matches the highs and lows of Yang in the changing of time. Meanwhile, Baochai gains the vigor of spring through the weakening of Daiyu. All of these imply the cycling of five elements while driving the plot. According to Andrew’s analysis, the plot structure of Dream of the Red Chamber symbolizes a cycle of joy and sorrow, separation and reunion, honor and disgrace, up and down in life. To resolve the contradiction between the individual and the world, we must recognize and adapt to the complementarity and periodicity of all things in the inverse. The third level is the metaphorical role played by some recurring images in a novel. For example, in Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte has repeatedly used metaphorical structures composed of images of earth, water, gas, fire, etc., among which the most striking is the metaphorical structure with fire as the dominant element. There are about 140 references to fire in the novel, including “ingle” 85 times (in addition to “fireside” 12 times), “vivid fire” 43 times, “fire breaking out” ten times (connected to the mad woman setting fire) and “hellfire” four times. Under the idea of fire, there are several layers of associations that form a vertical structure: (1) Fire is a source of heat and light; (2) in the British climate, fire is a necessity for human civilization and a focus of social and family life; (3) fire is often a metaphor for passions, especially lust, which can make people comfort and warm, but also can burn everything; (4) fire is associated with both spiritual purification and eternal punishment. All in all, the metaphor of fire shows both the intense, active and amazing inner life of enthusiastically striving for self-realization and the disaster and punishment caused by excessive indulgence. Moreover, it also shows the fierce conflict between the two factors.

11.3.2 Representations of Metonymy According to Jakobson’s thought, it can be considered that metaphor mainly works in an intuitive and comprehensive way, especially emphasizing on the role of

11.3

Representations of Metaphor and Metonymy

249

imagination, while the way how metonymy works is that it moves on following and analyzing the order of things, with a special focus on connections. Metonymy is a typical device employed in language. While language is a linear speech flow, the reality is a multidimensional object. Therefore, to grasp and express this multidimensional object with language, that is, to arrange it in one-dimensional sequence, we need to decompose the multidimensional unity into various factors and then arrange them one by one. This arrangement process is how mind works, which has a close relationship to metonymy. Pierre Fontanier had put forward a theory of conceptual relations, which include conformity, connectivity and similarity. (Li 1993: 341) Among them, the first two relations embody the essence of metonymy, and thus, can be used for the linguistic classification of metonym.

11.3.2.1

Conformity

This relationship is a way to combine two objects, each of which can exist separately. For example, (1) utensils and food: cold plates—cold dishes, vegetable platters—assorted cold dishes; large plate—food, delicacy; (2) decorations and wearers: dresses and hairpins—women, plain clothes— plainclothes policemen, cloth gown—common people, glasses—people with glasses; (3) locations and institutions: yamen—government office in feudal China, White House—America’s government; (4) locations and people: gate houses—doormen, vermilion gates–wealthy families, camping—campers; (5) events and participants: The conference would be held in May—Conference/ participants adopted an important resolution. (6) social groups and their members: repair factory—workers/strikes; (7) authors and their works: the great poet Pushkin—read Pushkin’s works; (8) knowledge areas and objects: syntactics—grammars; (9) actions and results: build—buildings, make up—makeup, contribute—contribution, stop—bus stop, mail—mails; (10) forms and contents: thick book—interesting book; (11) concrete and abstract: bowls—jobs, stomach—appetite, big hearts—ambitions, blood and tears—suffering, talents—talented people, beauty—beautiful woman.

11.3.2.2

Connectivity

This relationship refers to the situation that two objects form a whole and are mutually contained.

250

11

The Dual Metaphorical View of Linguistic Signs

(1) parts and the whole: hands—working men, eyes and ears—spies, trousseaus— dowry, day and night—everyday, pear—pear tree; (2) type and sub-type: species and genera: the elderly—parents, women—wives; (23) Hy чтoж, caдиcь, cвитилo (Well, sit down then, luminary). (Mayakovsky) (luminary replacing the sun) (24) Пyщe вceгo бepeги кoпeйкy (Most of all, take care of a penny). (Gogol) (penny in the meaning of money) (3) singular and plural: (25) И cлышнo былo дo paccвeтa, кaк ликoвaл Фpaнцyз. (Lermontov) (singular in place of plural) (It could be heard that Frenchman were celebrating till dawn.) (26) Mы вce глядим в Haпoлeoны. (Pushkin) (plural in place of singular) (We all look at Napoleons.) (4) characteristics and persons: beards—men, delicate eyebrows—beauties; (27) Шyтилa зpeлocть, пeлa юнocть (Joked matured, sang young). (Tvardovsky) (matured in the meaning of adults, young—young people) (Adults were joking, and young people were singing.); (5) materials and products: pigments—painting, weasel’s hair—Chinese brush, copper—copper coin; (28) He тo нa cepeбpe (It is not something in silver)—Ha зoлoтe eдaл (On gold tasted). (Griboyedov) (silver and gold standing for silverware and goldware, respectively) As with metaphor, metonymy is also fully embodied in the art world. Jakobson believes that, “In Russian lyrical songs, for example, metaphoric constructions predominate, while in the heroic epics the metonymic way is preponderant.” “It is the predominance of metonymy which underlies and actually predetermines the so-called realistic trend.” “A salient example from the history of painting is the manifestly metonymical orientation of cubism, where the object is transformed into a set of synecdoches…Ever since the productions of D. W. Griffith, the art of the cinema, with its highly developed capacity for changing the angle, perspective and focus of ‘shots’, has broken with the tradition of the theater and ranged an unprecedented variety of synecdochic ‘close-ups’ and metonymic ‘set-ups’ in general.” (Fundamentals of Language) For literary works, the role of metonymy is even more unignorable. Metonymy is a linear horizontal structure, mainly embodied in literature as a movement of thoughts with a narrative function. We know there are five “W” factors that are necessary to describe a complete event, namely “Who,” “When,” “Where,” “What” and “How.” And the combinations and replacements of these five factors reflect the essence of metonymy. For example,

11.3

Representations of Metaphor and Metonymy

251

(29) In 1985, Yuan Da returned to Shanghai from New York to start a toy factory. After ten years of hard work, he achieved great success. If this sentence is the opening line of a piece of text, we can use metonymic structures to extend the subject (who) of it, like (1) the young man who returned to his motherland in 1985; (2) an aspirational man who didn’t intend to stay in New York; a passionate man determining to make a difference in Shanghai; (4) a successful businessman who became world renown through toys; (5) a Chinese with his own successful career…. Genette Gérard had been trying to apply semiotic theories to literary analysis. In his Narrative Discourse, Genette pointed out that all textual novels should have three factors (text, narration and story). (Scholes 1988: 147) Through examining every aspect of what he called “tenses” of novels, he listed three main domains: order, duration and frequency and did researches on the linear combination of dimensions, finding out the real tracks of how metonymy works. Order refers to the arrangement of events, which is presented as the relationship between story and text. Order is chronological, but a story often develops into some complex time structure. Take James Joyce’s short story Eveline as an example, the time movement arranged by the author can be divided into six stages: childhood, early time 1, early time 2, not long ago, real time and future. These six stages show all aspects of Evelyn’s thoughts in front of us in a metonymic way. For example (a description from the third paragraph), “She looked round the room (real time), reviewing all its familiar objects (real time) which she had dusted once a week for so many years (past, repeating), wondering (past, repeating) where on earth all the dust came from. Perhaps she would never see again those familiar objects (future, conditional, negative) from which she had never dreamed of (past, negation in the future) being divided (future, existing in the past and the future).” It shows that her mind is rapidly swinging between the past and the future, revealing Eveline’s hesitation when she was about to run away with Frank. Duration refers to the relationship between the length of the event in a story and the attention paid by narrative discourse to them (which is a question of velocity and speed). Genette divides “duration” into four possibilities: (1) ellipsis— discourse time is zero; (2) summary—discourse time is shorter than story time; (3) scene—discourse time and story time are equal; (4) descriptive pause—story time is zero. In Eveline, we can find all four variations of duration: the ellipsis between two narrations (narrative fragments set in the real time and the future); the summary on Frank and Eveline’s previous life; dramatic scenes happened on the dock (comprehensive reflection of environment, movement and state of mind); frozen pause (When the ship set sail, Eveline had lost the ability to weigh the past and the future. She was completely expelled from human time and descended into frozen animal existence). Frequency includes the ways in which an event is repeated in the story itself (the same thing happens more than once) or in the narrative language (the same event is described more than once). In Eveline, the dominant code is the code of paralysis, which is a major factor in Evelyn’s character and the world around her (Dublin and

252

11

The Dual Metaphorical View of Linguistic Signs

Dubliners). In order to imply this paralysis, Joyce didn’t let Eveline move a step in the whole story, and the descriptions of her movements were all static repetitions. Even in the final climax scene, her movements were only described as “She stood among…She gripped…She set her white face….” The connotation of paralysis was thematized by such repeated, increasing stiffness. Besides, the author also applied some boring and monotonous sentence structures in the story—the subjects, verbs and predicates that repeated over and over again also expressed and reflected this profound connotation.

Chapter 12

The Converseness of Linguistic Signs

The term кoнвepcив comes from the English word converse. In the book Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics published in 1968, the British semanticist John Lyons used the phrase “converse terms” for the first time, referring to a pair of words whose associative meanings are opposite, like buy and sell and husband and wife. Converse terms are usually divided into four categories. (1) Verbs бpaть—дaвaтькнигy (take—give a book); выигpывaть—пpoигpывaтьмaтч (win–lose a match); зaнимaть—oдaлживaтьдeньги (borrow–lend money); импopтиpoвaть—экcпopтиpoвaтьтoвapы (import–export goods); oпepeжaть—oтcтaвaтьcoпepникa (outrun–lag behind opponents); пoбeждaть—тepпeтьпopaжeниe (win–lose); пoлyчaтьвпoдapoк—дapить (receive–give gifts); пpинимaть—cдaвaтьэкзaмeны (examine–take exams); cнимaть—cдaвaть кoмнaтy (rent–lend a house). (2) Nouns (mainly gerunds derived from converse verbs) взятиe—cдaчaгopoдa (taking over the city); импopт—экcпopт (import–export); выигpыш—пpoигpыш (win–loss); гocпoдcтвo—пoдчинeниe (domination–submission); пoбeдa—пopaжeниe (victory–defeat); пpиeм—пepeдaчa (reception–transmission); пpичинa—cлeдcвиe (cause–effect). (3) Comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs вышe—нижe (higher–lower); paньшe—пoзднee (earlier–later); © Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_12

253

254

12

The Converseness of Linguistic Signs

гpycтнee—вeceлee (sadder–happier); быcтpee—мeдлeннee (faster–slower). (4) Prepositions зa—пepeд (before–behind); нaд—пoд (above–under); дo—пocлe (before–after). The converseness has not caused widespread concern in the linguistic community; instead it is simply mentioned in lexicology as an antonym. In fact, the converseness is a complex yet interesting linguistic phenomenon and is of high research value. This chapter tries to analyze the converseness with “converse relation” as the topic from semantic, grammatical and logical levels and break the limitations of morphology with a view to studying its syntactics, explaining its nature and exploring its functional syntactic categories.

12.1

Converseness from the Perspective of Linguistic Semiotics

12.1.1 The Semantic Level The carrier of converse relations is a pair of words whose associative meanings are opposite. The pair of words is a unity of opposites. Firstly, converse pairs are in a relation of equipollent opposition and semantically intersected with each other. They are connected by the shared sememes and contrasted by special sememes. In other words, a converse pair seems to be “intersected” together, with one part being the same and the other part being different. This relation can be represented by the formula ABC–ABD, where AB is the shared part while C and D represent the different components between the pair. Take бoльшe (larger) and мeньшe (smaller) as an example: the shared sememe of the two are prerequisites, both referring to “the condition of an object in terms of size, area, quantity, strength, intensity and other aspects”; the differences lie in the fact that the two are equipollently opposite in terms of special sememes. The former refers to “more than the general or compared object,” and the latter means “less than the general or compared object.” The shared sememe of a converse pair is quite abstract, for example, the shared sememe in быcтpee (faster) and мeдлeннee (slower) is “cкopocть” (speed); and the special sememes are characterized by their opposition. бoльшaя (high) and мaлaя (low) in speed between быcтpee and мeдлeннee fully reflect this. Additionally, a converse pair semantically belongs to the same “semantic axis” (ceмaнтичecкaяocь), but the pair is at two extreme points along this axis. If “action

12.1

Converseness from the Perspective of Linguistic Semiotics

255

and state” can be used to summarize generic semantic features of all the converse terms, the horizontal axis can be labeled as follows: └►─────────────┴─────────────◄┘ positive action and state

zero position

negative action and state

In the above axis, some kind of “action and state” is the shared sememe that forms a paradigmatic relation, while “positive” and “negative” are the special sememes that form an opposite relation. Examples are cited to further detail the horizontal axis: Positive action and state

Zero position

Negative action and state

пpoдaвaть (sell)

ничeгo нe дeлaть do nothing ни бoльшe ни мeньшe no more, no less ни пepeдни зa middle

пoкyпaть (buy)

бoльшe (big)

пepeд (before)

мeньшe (small)

зa (behind)

This table, together with the semantic axis, essentially reflects the semantic relations between converse pairs and leads us to the following conclusions: (1) Any converse pair must represent the relationship in the semantic axis. “Positive and negative actions and states” constitute the extremes of the pair, and the reference point of equipollent opposition is the “zero position.” (2) “Zero position” is by no means a “nonexistent” concept; it means “static or non-deviation from the reference point.” For пpoдaвaть—пoкyпaть, “zero position” is the “static trading activity”; for бoльшe—мeньшe, “zero position” means “static measure change”; and for пepeд—зa, “zero action and state” represents the “static space–time transformation.” (3) Although the three types of pairs in the table are all in “relations of equipollent opposition,” the nature of their relations is not exactly the same. The latter two categories are classified as “pairs with opposite meanings,” namely they are not semantically “contradictory” or “mutually intolerant” but indicating two “extremes,” and there exist some words of “same nature, different degrees” between them; while the first category belongs to “pairs with relative meanings” or “pairs complementary in meanings,” their contents are mutually exclusive and opposite, and there can be no gradual transition between each other. (4) In the table above, words in the left column are generally antonyms of the words in the right column, for example, sell–buy, big–small, before–behind, etc. But we should note that the words in the middle column which, as context changes, can also form an antonymous relationship with the words in the left and right columns under certain conditions. For example, пpoдaвaть (sell) —ничeгo нe дeлaть (donothing), ничeгo нe дeлaть (donothing)—пoкyпaть (buy), etc.

256

12

The Converseness of Linguistic Signs

12.1.2 The Grammatical Level When analyzed at the grammatical level, converse pairs are functionally equivalent and share the same syntactic distribution. Zellig S. Harris claimed that “the distribution of an element is the whole range of contexts in which it can occur”; “the environment or position of an element consists of the neighborhood within an utterance.” (Neighborhood refers to the position of elements before, after and simultaneous with the element in question.)1 The distribution of converse pairs can be investigated from both the syntagmatic relation and the paradigmatic relation. From the perspective of syntagmatic relation, a pair shares the same neighborhood element. For example, (1) Пpeпoдaвaтeль пpинимaeт экзaмeн y cтyдeнтa.—Cтyдeнт cдaeт экзaмeн пpeпoдaвaтeлю. (The teacher gives the students an exam—The students take an exam from the teacher.) The verbs пpинимaть (take) and cдaвaть (give) in the example form a converse pair, and the neighborhood elements (пpeпoдaвaтeль/teacher, экзaмeн/exam, cтyдeнт/students) are shared by both of them. The co-occurrence of the neighborhood elements forms the foundation of converse pairs. This is essential because the same environment (context) is the prerequisite for functional equivalence, which in part eliminates the differences in form of different lexemes that perform the same function. There exists a substitution relation between the components of converse pairs (пpинимaть ← ! cдaвaть). This relation refers to the equivalence relation between sentence patterns or sentence sets formed by word types with the same function. The analysis of this relation is actually an analysis of the paradigmatic relation among various combinations with the same signs. From such paradigmatic relation, the following conclusion can be drawn: if the meaning of a sentence does not change as one lexeme is replaced, then the lexemes that can be replaced by each other are seen as a pair that performs the same function in the context, that is, a functionally equivalent pair.

12.1.3 The Logical Level One characteristic of converse pairs is that they show directionality in conveying meanings, whereby they can express the same act from reverse perspectives. (2) Якyпилyнeгoкнигy.—Oнпpoдaлмнeкнигy. (I bought a book from him—He sold a book to me.)

1

Harris (1951).

12.1

Converseness from the Perspective of Linguistic Semiotics

257

The act “purchase–sale” (кyпля-пpoдaжa) in the example is dually expressed from different perspectives of the participants (buyer or seller), namely X ! buys=sells Y ðpurchase-saleÞ In the expression, X and Y represent the buyer and the seller, respectively. For X, it is a “purchase” process; for Y, it is a “sale” process (Чтoкacaeтcя X, тo X пoкyпaeт; Чтoкacaeтcя Y, тo Y пpoдaeт). From the view of the whole trade process, the two sub-processes establish a logical implication (ecли–тo): If X “buys,” it implies that Y may “sell,” vice versa. The expression above is actually a confirmation of the converse relation. First of all, it is the identification of the transposition property of the converse relation, and it is exactly the exchange and regulation between the pre-lexeme and the post-lexeme that narrow the differences in semantics between the positive and the negative direction, hence making them bear the same signified (oбoзнaчaeтoдинитoтжeдeнoтaт) and have an interchangeable relationship, like: R (x, y) $ R′ (y, x). R and R′ here denote two exchanging elements, and x and y represent the actant items.

12.2

An Interpretation of Converse Relations

The study of converse pairs will inevitably be vibrant if the bonds of lexical studies are broken, as the representation of converse relations is mainly in sentences (especially in synonymous sentences) and sentences as an element of language sets provide a basis for the study. In the following part, the study of synonymous sentences will be taken to illustrate the nature and characteristics of converse relations.

12.2.1 Synonymousness A converse pair is generally regarded as a pair of typical antonyms, but they are often applied to illustrate synonymy when forming sentences. This seems contradictory, but actually it is not the case. As linguist Lev Alekseevich Novikov said, converse pairs themselves are opposite in meanings, but after inserted in sentence pairs, the latter then bear synonymous meanings which are comparable (Novikov 1973: 202). For example, (3) Пepвopaзpядник пpoигpывaeт пapтию мacтepy ! Macтepвыигpывaeт пapтию y пepвopaзpядникa. (The first-class player loses one game to the master ! The master wins one game from the first-class player.)

258

12

The Converseness of Linguistic Signs

The dialectical relationships in the above sentence between the antonymous word pair and the synonymous sentence pair are shown as follows:

{Conv1 (Vf) and Conv2 (Vf) constitute an antonymous word pair, and x, y, z are actants; x—first-class player, y—master, z—game; N is a noun, the figures in the bottom right corner are grammar marks} In the figure, the reason why “antonymous” and “synonymous” pairs are organically united is that the converse relations bear the property of synonymousness. Whether the first-class player loses or the master wins, the objective denotation is the same. Thus, only if the converse relation shows the essential characteristic that the compared sentences share the same denotation can it ensure the shareness of typological meanings and further construct synonymous sentences.

12.2.2 Reverseness The reverseness here does not refer to the reversible directions of movement but to the different perspectives reflected by words or sentences. In other words, it refers to different angles or different starting points of the “beginning” and “ending” in acts or relations, which constitute the most essential elements in a converse relation. The reverseness should firstly be manifested in the converse pairs that act as the core of predication and then in the syntactic structures. For example, (4) ИвaнпpoдaeтПeтpyвeлocипeд—ПeтpпoкyпaeтyИвaнaвeлocипeд. (Ivan sold a bicycle to Peter—Peter bought a bicycle from Ivan.) пpoдaвaть and пoкyпaть in the sentence denote the “out” and “in” of goods in the business activity, respectively, which reflects an opposite tendency; at the same time, due to reverseness, when words in a pair replace each other, it will inevitably lead to a synchronous conversion in syntax accompanied by corresponding changes in dominance relation and word forms. The following figure is used to show the conversion and changes in the above example:

xðN1 Þ  Conv1 Vf  yðN3 Þ  zðN4 Þ  yðN1 Þ  Conv2 Vf  xðN2 Þ  zðN4 Þ

12.2

An Interpretation of Converse Relations

259

12.2.3 Freeness and Symmetry Since a converse relation should not be unidirectional but bidirectional, converse terms can be replaced by each other based on logical implication. As mentioned before, two sentences representing one converse relation bear the same denotation and an interchangeable relation, that is, if A loses to B, it means that B wins A and vice versa. Furthermore, freeness and converseness lead to symmetry, such as пpoдaвaть—пoкyпaть (sell–buy), бoльшe—мeньшe (more–less), cлeвaoт— cпpaвaoт (left–right); as we can see, the events these converse terms indicate are symmetric. By contrast, the following sentences are not symmetrical actually nor are they of converse relations: Oнoтpывaeтcяoтдpyзeй—Дpyзьяoтpывaюcяoтнeгo (“He breaks away from friends” does not indicate that “Friends break away from him” in logic).

12.2.4 Independence in Dictionary Definition Although the events reflected by converse terms bear synonymousness, the fact that their substitutions inevitably lead to syntactic conversions indicates that they are by no means synonyms, so it is natural for dictionaries to define them separately. Based on this feature, we could regard the opposition of “active voice–passive voice” as a non-converse relation (most researchers classify them as a converse relation). For example, Paбoчиecтpoятдoм. (Workers build a house)—Дoмcтpoитcяpaбoчими. (The house is built by workers). If evaluated from synonymousness, reverseness, freeness and symmetry, the sentence pair is close to converse relation. However, they bear little equivalent value when taking functional load into consideration. Additionally, for the passive voice tends to be more complicated than the active voice, active voice words are employed to explain the passive voice in dictionaries: BcтpoитcяX- oм = XcтpoитB;Bcчитaeтcяxopoшим = ЛюдиcчитaютBxopoшим. Similarly, the following type of sentences should not be regarded as converse relations either: HикoлaйдpyжитcИгopeм = ИгopьдpyжитcHикoлaeм. (Nikolai makes friends with Igor = Igor makes friends with Nikolai); ApaвняeтcяB = BpaвняeтcяA. (A equals B = B equals A). Although the corewords of predicates дpyжить (make friendly with), paвнятьcя (equal) (similarly, ccopитьcя/quarrel, вcтpeчaтьcя/meet, etc.) are repeatedly used in these sentence pairs, their dictionary definitions are neither independent of nor dependent on each other because they are primarily just notes for once in dictionaries.

260

12

The Converseness of Linguistic Signs

12.2.5 Activeness in Actant Exchange Most researchers have made requirements for the semantic composition of sentences when defining the converse relation: the actant (aктaнт) in a sentence should not be less than two, the number of actants should remain unchanged before and after the exchange, and the serial number of actants should remain the same, while the contents become different. What needs to be further pointed out here is another nature of the actant exchange: activeness. In the single sentence Пepвopaзpядникпpoигpывaeтпapтиюмacтepy (The first-class player loses one game to the master), пepвopaзpядник (first-class player) is understood as the agent (active actor), and мacтep (master) the patient (negative actor). The understanding above seems incomprehensive, however, when converse terms are involved in synonymous sentences or when there is another contrastive sentence (Macтepвыигpывaeтпapтию/The master wins one game), because what мacтep (master) embodies is not a simple negative or internal relation, but an obvious equal participation (the reference to the latter sentence illustrates such point better). In other words, it is also an active participant in the event, at least it can be said that it also implies a kind of initiative and its “subordinate” status is merely subject to the speaker’s intent. In order to show this nature of converse relations and distinguish it from the statement of “active–passive,” the concept of “agent-patient” may as well be employed to represent such inner relationship. Similarly, the “activeness” feature of the actant exchange is also consistent with the “logical weighting” concept. The logical weighting is represented by three approaches: word order, intonation and actual division. A converse relation is often connected by the distinction between “certainty–uncertainty” (oпpeдeлeннocть-нeoпpeдeлeннocть) to “theme (тeмa)-rheme (peмa)” and “known (дaннoe)-new (нoвoe),” and thus, it can communicate with actual division. Yuri Derenikovich Apresyan once cited such two examples: “When we say Пepвopaзpядниквыигpaлyчeмпиoнa, it is the fact that the first-class player was highly skilled (unexpectedly defeated the champion!) is stressed as new knowledge; when we say Чeмпиoнпpoигpaлпepвopaзpядникy, it is to emphasize the fact that the champion’s state is poor (lost to a first-class player!) as new knowledge” (Apresyan 1974: 257–258). Thus, the so-called distinction between synonymous sentences where converse words are involved is nothing more than to describe the same denotation from the perspective of opposing participants.

12.2.6 Non-compatibility Generally, as a possible equivalent of the corresponding word, a converse term can always be reminded or implied, and as long as the emphasis on the narrative is changed, the converse term can be used in a certain context. Therefore, the converse terms could be conditionally replaced by each other. However, since converse pairs

12.2

An Interpretation of Converse Relations

261

represent the opposite relation between the subject and the object, their sememes on the whole are mutually exclusive. As a result, when there exists a converse relation with same denotation as the premise, a pair of converse terms can by no means appear in the same sentence as they are incompatible with each other. This is quite different from antonyms and synonyms. Please see the following two sentences consisting of antonyms and synonyms: (5) Oнпpиxoдитвбиблиoтeкypaнoиyxoдитпoзднo. (He comes to the library early and leaves late—antonym pairs) (6) Mыдpyзья, xoтяпpoтивoпoлoжны,пoляpны. (We are friends, despite different views and oppositestandpoints—synonym pairs)

12.2.7 Bilateralness Converse terms are mainly used to express bilateral relations, and thus, they must be associated with two event participants of opposite behaviors; however, antonyms and synonyms do not possess or do not have to possess such feature. Take the sentence below consisting of antonymous pairs as an example: (7) Oн быcтpo пoднялcя нa cкopocтнoм лифтe нa двaдцaть пятый этaж и чepeз пять минyт cпycтилcя нa пepвый. (He quickly took the elevator up to the 25th floor and five minutes later went down to the first floor.) In the sentence, пoднятьcя-cпycтитьcя does not involve bilateral relations, and the two antonyms share the same actor “oн.”

12.2.8 Concatenation Synonymous or antonymous pairs do not necessarily exert influence on the actants when constructing a sentence, and internal exchanges in the pairs do not usually reach the surface structure of sentences. For example, (8) Этoт пapeнь пoxoдит нa cтapикa.—Этoт пapeнь пoxoж нa cтapикa. (This guy is like an old man—This guy looks like an old man.) (N1  Vfнa N4—N1  Adjкpaткнa N4) (9) [Кaлиныч]Кaждый дeнь xoдил c бapинoм нa oxoтy, нocил eгo cyмкy, инoгдa и pyжьe.—Кaждый дeнь xoдил c бapинoм нa oxoтy, тacкaл eгo cyмкy, инoгдa и pyжьe. (Every day Kalinich went hunting with the master, carrying his bag, sometimes a gun.)

262

12

The Converseness of Linguistic Signs

N1  Vf  N4  N1  Vf  N4




Clearly, the interchange of synonyms in the above sentence does not alter the position or function of the event participant (actant), and the changes of the sentences are merely embodied in the conversion of words. In contrast, converse pairs often bring concatenations to the antithetic sentences when they get involved in sentence construction. According to Apresyan, once they participate in the conversion, the sentence pairs must meet the condition of “same serial number of actants but different contents” (Apresyan 1970: 10). For example, (10) Чeмпиoн пpoигpывaeт нoвичкy. — Hoвичoк выигpывaeт y чeмпиoнa. (The champion loses to the noob—The noob wins the champion.) 

x1 ðN1 Þ  Vf 1  y1 ðN3 Þ  y1 ðN1 Þ  Vf 2  x1 ðN2 Þ



It can be seen from the above sentence of converse relation that the serial numbers of actants x1 and y1 do not change before and after the conversion, but their positions have changed, while the case change shows that they have been inconsistent in functional content.

12.2.9 Consistency Apresyan believed that one of the criteria to identify converse terms is that R and S (corresponding converse terms) belong to the same (deep) word type (Apresyan 1974: 26). This criterion refers to not only the word type equivalence (i.e., two words both belong to verb or noun, etc.) in the surface structure of the converse terms but also the equivalence in the deep structure, that is, consistency in semantic–syntactic function. In other words, words of different types with the same function can form converse pairs. For example, (11) Mы yчимcя y нeгo pyccкoмy языкy.—Oн нaш пpeпoдaвaтeль пo pyccкoмy языкy. (We learn Russian from him—He is our teacher of Russian.)

Reference Harris, Z. S. (1951). Methods in structural linguistics 15–16.

Chapter 13

The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

Iconicity is a hot topic of cognitive linguistics in recent years. It refers to the natural connection between language structure and human’s experiential structure or conceptual structure. The study on iconicity is a counterargument to the arbitrariness of structural linguistics initiated by Ferdinand de Saussure. It provides an important reference for us to understand the nature of linguistic signs and to study the relation between concept and cognition. So far, iconicity “has become not only a central subject of linguistics and cognitive theory but also an important topic of communicative sciences and cognitive sciences” (Wen 2000: 71). This chapter carries out a further analysis of iconicity based on relevant researches conducted by scholars in China and abroad, which mainly involve the following issues: (1) the concept of iconicity; (2) the philosophical basis of iconicity (3) history and major achievements of studies on iconicity; (4) classification of iconicity and its representation in language; (5) iconicity and its phonetic meaning; (6) iconicity in Chinese language and culture; (7) prospect of studies on iconicity.

13.1

The Concept of Iconicity

13.1.1 Origin of the Term The origin of the term “iconicity” has a close connection with Charles S. Peirce who is reputed as the “father of modern linguistics.” The main content of Peirce’s theory of signs is two interconnected triads, and one of the triads discusses the classification of signs. As is known to all, the philosophical basis of Peirce’s theory is three universal categories, namely firstness, secondness and thirdness. Peirce used the three categories to further analyze the relation between sign and referent and finally managed to classify signs into icon, index and symbol. An icon represents its object via imitating or describing it, and the connection between the icon © Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_13

263

264

13

The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

and the object depends on the similarity in their features. Photograph, picture, statue, movie image, construction sketch, equation and all kinds of graphs are all typical examples of icon. The relation between an index and its referent, however, is not simulative but has some connection with cause and effect and time. Road sign, arrow, pointer, proper noun and demonstrative pronoun are all examples of index. In the meantime, a symbol is a sign which “refers to the object that it denotes by virtue of a law, usually an association of general ideas, which operates to cause the symbol to be interpreted as referring to the object” (quoted from Ding Ersu 1994: 11). The relation between the symbol and the object is conventional. Natural language and various marking systems are mostly examples of such symbols. Pierce also classified icon into three sub-categories based on their complexity: (1) image, which is similar to its referent in terms of attributes, e.g., photograph; (2) diagram, the components of which have some similarity with those of its referent, e.g., map; (3) metaphor: which has some general similarities with its referent and can reflect the characteristics of its referent via the parallel relation between different things. For example, the sentence “This man is a lion” is a metaphor. Metaphorical signs represent the most profound and abstract similarity. Based on the general definition of icon, Peirce pointed out that “in the syntax of every language there are logical icons of the kind that are aided by conventional rules” (Shen 1993: 2). At present, researches that the scholars in China and abroad are working on indicating that it is reasonable to regard Peirce as the first person to carry out the study on iconicity, and we also agree with this idea. Peirce’s trichotomy of signs illustrates three types of relationship between the signifier and the signified. Compared with Saussurean semiology’s “dualistic sign” (i.e., the arbitrary relationship between the signifier and the signified), this “triadic sign relation” has great flexibility, interpretability and comprehensiveness and provides a very effective way for us to analyze different kinds of signs in the contemporary society. Peirce took the lead in systematically elaborating non-linguistic signs, but it was a pity that the linguistic community dominated by Saussure’s thought at the time did not pay enough attention to it. The thought of “arbitrariness between the signifier and the signified” dominated the linguistic community for a long time, while “motivation,” “similarity” and “demonstrability” between the signifier and the signified were neglected and underestimated. Fortunately, the development of the functionalist school over the recent decade has brought about the changes in language views. Language is not just regarded as a self-sufficient formal system, and the semantic and functional motivation behind the form should be explored. The achievements of contemporary studies in linguistic typology and common features require people to make a reasonable explanation from a new perspective for some similar form-meaning matching relations that recur in different and totally irrelevant languages, while in the recently developed cognitive linguistics, the basic proposal of “language structure reflecting conceptual structure” needs to find powerful evidence in language. With the involvement of all these elements, the study of “iconicity” has become one of the hot issues in linguistic studies, and Peirce’s semiotics theory has attracted more and more attention.

13.1

The Concept of Iconicity

265

13.1.2 Implications and Chinese Renderings of the Term In order to make a precise interpretation of the term “iconicity,” we have to turn to Peirce’s semiotics theory once more. His analyses on iconicity include: (1) the so-called similarity that defines icon is not objective or logic-based, but a “psychological reality,” that is, similarity in perception; (2) from a certain point of view, icon and index can be regarded as two subclasses of symbols because all signs are the result of conventions, which is to say, according to Peirce, there must be an interpreter between an icon and its referent. (3) The boundary between icon and index is not absolute, which is often just a difference in terms of degree. “Absolute icons” do not exist in the real life. In this sense, none of the icons are complete. His idea is to reflect that there are three different degrees of signs in terms of “naturalness,” from the most natural icon to the relatively unnatural index, then to the most unnatural symbol. In this way, the relationship between the signifier and the signified is fully embodied in the iconicity-convention continuum consisting of these three types of signs. We can think that icon is built on the mode of metaphor, index is built on the mode of metonymy and symbol is achieved through conventions. Iconicity can be understood as a similarity that exists between the signifier and the signified and can be felt by the interpreter of signs, and this similarity differs in degree. As icon is the focus of our research, it should be emphasized here. Since icon is a kind of sign, it is absolutely not the real thing itself but a model which summarizes the functional features of the thing. In other words, the function of iconicity does not exist between signs and physical natures of referents, but in the “same” perceptual structure or relational system. In this way, even if the shape of an icon is different from the object, it can play the role of iconic meaning (such as graphs and metaphors); moreover, even for a picture (or image) with the highest degree of iconicity, the iconicity between it and the object being expressed is not a simple mechanical repetition, but actually a “conversion process.” Therefore, about icons risen to the semiotic level, Umberto Eco specifically pointed out the following three premises: (1) we should define objects according to cultural conventions, namely identifying them with certain recognized features, for example, using four feet and black and white stripes to represent a zebra; (2) we may simplify essential features of objects according to cultural conventions, like in the above example, the object can be represented just by stripes rather than four feet or the color of black and white; (3) we can set up production modes which are sensible and related to each other between object features and signs according to conventions, for example, certain perspective rules are needed before drawing a vase using perspective (Wang 1994: 4). Through the above discussion, we have a clear understanding of the features of these three types of signs, and now we can consider how to translate them into Chinese. As mentioned above, there is a certain degree of similarity between the signifier and the signified. When we translate these terms, we should try to find a signifying form that can reflect the signified content. The traditional translation,

266

13

The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

however, does not take this point into consideration, and these three types of signs are translated into 图象(象似符,图象符,图式,象符,类象符), 指示 (标志,标记,引 得符) and 象征(抽象符,象征符,语符,代码符). Researchers including Wang Yin and Zhang Min have all discussed this in their papers (Wang 1999: 49; Zhang 1997: 148) and expressed quite useful opinions. We prefer the following translation methods: (1) add “符” (literally sign) to each term so as to present it as a sign and achieve a sense of symmetry at the same time. In fact, this practice is also reflected in other languages, such as in Russian, знaк/sign/is divided into икoничecкий знaк (знaк-икoн)/icon, нидeкcный знaк (знaк-нидeкc)/index and cимвoличecкий знaк/ symbol/. (2) Since the cause of the three types of signs depends on similarity, causality and convention, respectively, icon can be translated as “象似符” in Chinese because it coincides with “similarity” as well as “iconicity”; index can be translated as “索引符” because the Chinese characters “索引” highlight the causality between the signifier and the signified; symbol can be translated as “象征符” considering that the concept of “象征” reflects the essential features of “convention.” As for the three sub-categories under icon, based on Wang Yin’s opinion, we have translated them into “影象符”, “拟象符” and “喻象符,” respectively, to maintain the correspondence of the classification pattern, which can both reflect that they belong to the category of icon and indicate their differences in iconicity through the use of “影,” “拟,” “喻.” Iconicity, understood as the synonym of “interpretability” and “motivation,” indicates the arguable similarity between icon and its referent. The word “iconicity” here is translated into “象似性” among other various translations such as “临摹性,” “类象性,” “具象性” and “动因,” which is closely connected to our previous understanding and translation of various types of signs.

13.1.3 Definition of the Term There is currently no unified understanding of the definition of “iconicity,” and we may draw inspirations from the relevant views proposed by some Chinese scholars. In his article A Survey of Studies of Iconicity in Syntax, Shen Jiaxuan made the following comments on iconicity: “In contrast with arbitrariness, iconicity of language refers to the inherent relationship between the signifier and the signified, which is evidence-based and justified. The iconicity of linguistic structure directly corresponds to human’s conceptual structure, not just generally embodies the conceptual structure” (Shen 1993: 3). Yan Chensong noted in his Introduction to Linguistic Iconicity that “linguistic structure can to some extent reflect human’s conceptual structure of the real world” (Yan 1997: 21). Zhang Min pointed out in his paper Chinese Reduplication from the Perspectives of Typology and Cognitive Grammar that “there exists some similarity between linguistic signs and their structures and the conceptual content/external reality they represent and its structure. In his book Cognitive Linguistics and Chinese Noun

13.1

The Concept of Iconicity

267

Phrases, Zhang further described that “to put it simply, the iconicity of language refers to the similarity between the form of perceived reality and the elements and structure of language. In other words, it means the connection between form and meaning (or the signifier and the signified) is non-arbitrary, justified and arguable” (Zhang 1998: 139). Wang Yin defined “iconicity” as “a phenomenon of the conceived similarity between the sound, form, or structure of a sign and its meaning.”1 From this definition, we can see that “iconicity” exists in both the language unit itself (sound and form) and its relationship (structure) with other units. This view is consistent with John Haiman’s idea of compositional iconicity and relational iconicity, yet obviously the former is more understandable. The above scholars’ opinions are all based on the research findings of foreign scholars and their own understanding as well, which reflect the connotation of “iconicity” from different perspectives. Given above, three points should be added: (1) It seems inappropriate to define “iconicity” as a “phenomenon” for it is an abstract concept, and it is more accurate to understand it as a “feature”; (2) the “iconicity” of language is reflected not merely in the static units and relationship of the language systems but in its specific dynamic (using) process; (3) while structural linguistics is based on Anglo-American analytic philosophy, the basis of cognitive linguistics is embodied philosophy. The latter states that cognition is embodied and bound by body and experience. It is therefore necessary to emphasize both the “embodied” and the “perceived” nature of “iconicity” in its definition. In this way, we can give “iconicity” a tentative definition: a feature of conceived similarity between a unit of the linguistic sign system and its relationship with other units as well as its corresponding object or relationship which is embodied and perceived.

13.2

The Philosophical Basis of Iconicity

The essence of iconicity is ultimately the relationship between the signifier and the signified (in a broad sense, it should include indicated meaning, objective reality, experiential structure, conceptual framework, etc.): Is there any reasoning for their relationship? We think that this is not only a linguistic issue, but more importantly a philosophical one, as it constitutes the survival foundation for and existence value of iconicity.

1

Yin (1999).

268

13

The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

13.2.1 Traditional Philosophy The Platonic Paradigm is opposite to the Aristotelian-Saussurean Paradigm. The core of the former is that if we intend to express reality in a language, the language must be to some extent similar to the reality, and many aspects of linguistic signs and acts are essentially marked by natural restrictions. According to linguistic philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt, “language is the essential characteristic of a nation”; “a language represents the spirit of a nation, and vice versa” (quoted from Hu Mingyang 1988: 57). Such a point of view actually embodies the idea of “language structure reflecting conceptual structure.” This holds true, indeed, as language exists in the human world, people must learn the world through language. Meanwhile, each nation will inevitably bring a certain kind of unique subjective perception into its own language, thus forming a special “world view.” In accordance with the ideas of Plato and Humboldt, philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein also put forward the idea that language and reality are isomorphic. It is typically represented in the “picture theory of language.” Though there were some amendments on it in his later theories, he didn’t completely refute this view but admitted that it is feasible to some extent. In the late nineteenth century, Peirce proposed the “trichotomy of signs” (icon, index, symbol) which is philosophically consistent with the theory of iconicity.

13.2.2 Cognitive Philosophy It is cognitive philosophy that really makes the theory of “iconicity” recognized. Cognition refers to mental activities in the cognitive process in which people perceive and learn about the world, gain knowledge and solve problems. Cognition, in a broad sense, involves visual, auditory and kinesthetic senses, memory, attention, mind, thinking and reasoning, etc. Cognitive linguistics (CL) is an interdisciplinary branch of linguistics, combining knowledge and research from both cognitive philosophy and linguistics. Since it was incorporated into the field of linguistics in the 1970s, cognitive linguistics has criticized traditional linguistic theories and argued that language is a reflection of the real world through human cognitive processing. Hence, there are two processes of reflection: (1) People’s perception, concepts and scientific understanding are all the reflections of objective reality, in which reality is dominant and often affects people’s cognitive thinking. (2) Language reflects the objective world not in a direct way, but through people’s cognition toward it. Namely, there is another process of reflection between cognition and language, in which cognition is dominant and it precedes, determines and serves as the basis for language.

13.2

The Philosophical Basis of Iconicity

269

Based on these two processes of reflection, cognitive linguistics explores a theoretical model, namely reality ! cognition ! language. It can be inferred from this model: Cognition could reflect reality only if they share certain similarities; language could express concepts only if it maintains the mapping relationship with cognition. In other words, human’s conceptual structures are formed based on their perceptual experience and cognitive processing of the real world. To some extent, there must be corresponding similarity between language as a thinking tool and human’s experiential structures, conceptual structures and meaning of form in many aspects. Only in this way can language ultimately reflect the world.

13.2.3 Embodied Philosophy The existence value of iconicity is inseparable from the role of nonobjective embodied philosophy. In contrast to objective philosophy, nonobjective embodied philosophy opposes “autonomy” and “dualism of mind and body,” and insists that humans are connected to the world through the interaction between body and world. It is our experience and imagination that make cognition, mind and knowledge possible. Due to the physiological structure, humans use special methods to perceive everything, understand their relations and finally get them fixed by experience. Therefore, “the outside world (both human and natural) does not seem to be acceptable any longer…one has to doubt every kind of linguistics that does not take into account in a sufficiently complex way the problem of how the outside world is ‘imported’ into language” (Simone 1994: 4). Meanwhile, embodied philosophy opposes “pure internalism” which includes Saussure’s structural internalism and Chomsky’s mental internalism, both of which are common in separating language from the outside world and only studying the internal structure of language. According to embodied philosophy, while it is of great value to seek explanations solely within language, many unexplained phenomena have been left: If language is separated from the “outside” world, how is today’s language formed? How can we show that “language is a social phenomenon”? What is the interface to achieve the purpose of expressing the real world? Therefore, theories only studying the internal structure of language cannot be regarded as complete and reliable. Meaning is based on objective reality and human cognition. Language, as one of the three links, must be directly or indirectly related to cognition and reality and must be branded with them to a certain extent. Moreover, nonobjective embodied philosophy opposes the “non-metaphorical view.” According to statistics (Lakoff and Johnson 1999), more than 70% of expressions in English are derived from metaphor. Therefore, metaphors are what we live by and pervasive in everyday life. Jacques Derrida (1982) put it more clearly that where there are words, there are metaphors. All metaphors are motivated. For example, the fact that such words as “attraction, electricity and magnetism” can be used in the “love” metaphor is by no means arbitrary, since they

270

13

The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

stem from the meaning and general conceptual metaphor of the source domain, “physical force”: “Love is a physical force.”2 Obviously, the motivation is mainly derived from metaphor and metonymy. Therefore, to recognize the cognitive function of metaphor is to recognize the existence value of iconicity. Through the above analysis, we can draw a conclusion that meaning is a psychological phenomenon based on experience and is the result of human interaction with the world. Meaning is inseparable from form, and there are many demonstrable relationships between the two (Wang 2002: 4–7). In conclusion, autonomy, pure internalism and the non-metaphorical view are the theoretical basis of arbitrariness and the critical object of cognitivism and nonobjective embodied philosophy. It is in their confrontation that the philosophical foundation of iconicity is established, and it is due to the continuous development of the cognitive theory that the iconicity theory is in the ascendant.

13.3

Classification of Iconicity and Its Manifestation in Language

For linguistic signs, “iconicity” is both a general and a particular question. It can be manifested in different degrees, in different languages and at different levels of the same language. Reviewing Chinese scholars’ research, Shen Jiaxuan concluded that there are three iconic principles in syntax, that is, “proximity principle,” “sequential order principle” and “quantity principle”; Yan Chensong introduced four “copying” phenomena including “alienation,” “symmetry,” “unpredictability” and “thinking order”; Wang Yin’s classification is more complete with seven kinds of iconicity: “markedness iconicity,” “topic iconicity,” “filtration iconicity,” “sentence pattern iconicity,” “distance iconicity,” “sequence iconicity” and “quantity iconicity”; Zhang Min put forward various motivations of iconicity such as “complexity,” “independence,” “distance,” “sequence,” “symmetry,” “overlap” and “categorization.” Though the terms they use are different, they discuss the same object— iconicity, which, according to their classifications and illustrations, has a hierarchical relationship that is either mutual causation or mutual crossover. Here, we attempt to classify iconicity by drawing on the findings of scholars in China and abroad and combining our understanding of iconicity with theirs. Based on Peirce’s triadic notions of image, diagram and metaphor that have been mentioned above, iconicity can be divided into three kinds: imagic iconicity, diagrammatic iconicity and metaphoric iconicity.

2

Yin (2002).

13.3

Classification of Iconicity and Its Manifestation in Language

271

13.3.1 Imagic Iconicity Imagic iconicity refers to the direct likeness between the sound or word shape of a linguistic sign and its signified, which is mainly manifested in onomatopoeic words and pictographs. Take onomatopoeic words as an example. There are a certain number of onomatopoeic words in any language. For instance, the word that depicts the cry of cuckoos is bu-gu in Chinese, cuckoo in English, кy-кy in Russian, coucou in French, cuco in Spanish, cuculo in Italian, kuckuck in German, cucu in Romanian, kakuk in Hungarian and kakko in Japanese; the cry of cats is miao in Chinese, miaou in English, мяy in Russian, miau in German, miyavlak in Turkish, meyalaw in Kazakh and meyoloo in Kirghir. Such examples abound in Russian and Chinese, likeмy-мy—哞哞 (bellow of cattle), гa-гa—嘎嘎 (honk of geese), кpя-кpя—呷呷 (quack of ducks), бyль-бyль—哗哗 (gurgle of water), кyкapeкy—喔喔 (crow of roosters), тyк-тyк—咚咚 (knocking sound), тик-тик—滴答 (ticking of clocks), xa-xa—哈哈 (loud laugh) and xи-xи—嘿嘿 (little giggle). All phonetic forms of these words imitate natural sounds with a high imagic iconicity.

13.3.2 Diagrammatic Iconicity The iconicity of this kind is the research focus of many cognitive-functional grammarians. According to John Haiman, icons in human’s natural languages mainly consist of images and patterns, especially the latter, and the pattern here is the diagram we understand. He divided diagrammatic iconicity into three kinds: isomorphism, automorphism and motivation.

13.3.2.1

Isomorphism

Isomorphism is a one-to-one correspondence between the signifier and the signified, which refers to one form having only one meaning, and one meaning only one form, regardless of any differences in characteristics between these forms. Such isomorphism is actually the relational iconicity or compositional iconicity (the correspondence of syntax and experiential structure) aforementioned. The manifestation of this kind of iconicity is exactly that “one form has only one meaning” and “different forms convey different meanings.” Here are some examples: crow, crunch, cry, crack, crackle, crash, creak and croak (all have a meaning of “to make a sound”); flap, flare, flee, flick, flicker, fling, flip, flitter, flow, flutter, fly; the, this, that, they, their, thee, thou, thy, then, there, thus, than, though; what, why, when, where, which, whether. The characteristics of all these groups of words can be summarized as “similar forms with similar meanings.”

272

13

The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

This iconicity principle can be applied to both lexical level and syntactic level. Cross-language surveys show that conditional clauses and yes-no questions are often similar in structure. For example, both conditional clauses and (indirect) yes-no questions in English can start with if, and they both can use the word order in which the subject and the verb are reversed. This is because, in meaning and function, these two kinds of sentences both serve as conversation topics. However, examples of “different forms having different meanings” abound in languages, and it is unnecessary to go into details here.

13.3.2.2

Automorphism

Haiman held that “isomorphism” is restricted to the one-to-one correspondence between the signifier and the signified, while “automorphism” is defined as a one-to-one correspondence between two or more parts of the same system. For Joseph Greenberg, the fact that time, space and discourse deixis are mapped on to the same set of demonstrative words (e.g., the same form may signal first person, closeness to the speaker or immediate future) is a signal that these conceptual domains are thought of in the same way. He believed that this is resulted from a transfer of concrete spatial meaning into actual time and discourse time in a way of iconicity (quoted from Zhang Min 1998: 152).

13.3.2.3

Motivation

Motivation is the property whereby diagrams exhibit the same relationship among their parts as their referents do among their parts. There are some disagreements in the interpretation and naming of this iconicity among functional grammarians, since motivation is often difficult to distinguish from isomorphism. Saussure first proposed the basic concept of motivation, and then Haiman considered it,in a narrow sense,as the parallelism between relationships; Thomas Givon, among others, interpreted it as a kind of isomorphism; Masako Hiriga took it as a structural diagram; and Shen Jiaxuan regarded it as a relational iconicity. What you see here are merely introductions for such classification methods rather than strict distinctions. Scholars have made fruitful achievements in the following six aspects: (1) Linear iconicity The order of sentences or words corresponds to the order of objective things or people’s cognition. A common example is Caesar’s saying “Veni, vidi, vivi” (I came, I saw, I conquered), in which the order of words is consistent with that of events, presenting a typical chronological iconicity that can be reflected not only in the order of internal components of a sentence, but also in large language units such as complex sentences. In a large number of subordinative compounds, the reason

13.3

Classification of Iconicity and Its Manifestation in Language

273

clause is usually put ahead of the result clause, which conforms to the natural or perceived chronological order, because when we talk about concepts, reasons generally come before results. The principle of linear iconicity is pervasive in Chinese. James H.-Y. Tai proposed the “chronological order principle” in Chinese: The relative order of two syntactic units is determined by the chronological order of the states in the conceptual field they represent (Tai 1985: 50). This principle could be independently demonstrated by some phenomena in Chinese word order. When two Chinese sentences are connected by temporal conjunctions (i.e., “再”/not until, “就”/as soon as, “才”/unless), the event in the first sentence always occurs before that in the second sentence. For example, (1) 我吃过饭,你再打电话给我/Please don’t call me until I finish my meal. (2) 我们工作一结束,他就来/He will come as soon as we finish our work. (3) 你给他钱,他才给你书/He won’t give you the book unless you pay him. The linear order of these three sentences is completely in line with the chronological order principle. In general, the order of their internal components is not allowed to be exchanged. Of course, this iconicity embodied in sentences is not only determined by the chronological order of things, but is also closely associated with the conceptual characteristics of their internal elements. It could be verified from some fixed coordinate phrases. For example in Russian, здecьитaм/here and there/, тyдa— cюдa/go there-come here/, мыиoни/we and they/, людиизвepи/human and animal/, чeлoвeкизaкoн/man and law/, юнoшиидeвyшки/boy and girl/, дaмыигocпoдa/ ladies and gentlemen/, paбoчиe, кpecтьяниниинтeллигeнция/workers, farmers and intellectuals/. The order of the internal elements of these coordinate phrases is not arbitrary, but related to the hierarchical relationship between the objects referred to by these elements. These hierarchical relationships include indication (the first three examples focus on speech acts, that is, participant-oriented), human nature (the middle two examples are people-oriented), sociality (in the last three examples, the order of юнoшиидeвyшки is determined by gender, that is, male-centered; the order of дaмыигocпoдa also relies on gender, albeit just for etiquette; and the order of paбoчиe, кpecтьяниниинтeллигeнция is totally dependent on ideology). It could be seen that the order of elements in these coordinate phrases corresponds to the complex hierarchical relationships among their referents. In addition, linear iconicity is also closely associated with people’s mindsets and cultural concepts. (2) Distance iconicity Distance iconicity means that “the linguistic distance between expressions corresponds to the conceptual distance between them,” or “entities that are closer together functionally, conceptually, or cognitively will be placed closer together at the code level, i.e., temporally or spatially.” In the meanwhile, the more proximate a category is to a verb, the greater its semantic relevance is to the stem. For example:

274

13

The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

(4) 小张认为他明天以前会离去/Zhang does not think he will leave till tomorrow. (5) 小张认为他明天以前不会离去/Zhang thinks he will not leave till tomorrow. (6) I taught Greek to Harry. (7) I taught Harry Greek. (4) has a weaker degree of negation than (5), since the negative marker “not” in (4) is less spatially close to the verb “leave”; comparing (6) with (7), the influence of “I” on Harry in (7) is greater than that in (6). Distance iconicity is reflected not only in the syntactic structure, but also in the morphological structure. Joan Bybee found that the closeness between verb stems and inflectional affixes tends to reflect the conceptual distance of what these affixes express. She argued that the ranking of conceptual distance between verb stems and inflectional affixes is as follows: valence < voice < aspect < tense < mood < number < person < gender. This law is also reflected in phrasal verbs in English: (8) (9) (10) (11)

She She She She

was working at that time. worked a lot at that time. could swim when she was three. swim—could when she was three.

In (8), the aspect marker “-ing” is the closest to the verb stem “work” since the former is an affix to the latter. The tense marker “was” serves as an auxiliary verb, so it is less close to the main verb. In (9), since there is no aspect marker, the tense marker can be attached to the verb stem, which indicates that the relationship between the tense marker and the verb stem is relatively close. In (10), however, the modal marker “could” cannot be used like a tense marker, so it can never be attached to the verb stem. In the sight of cognitive linguists, the proximity of aspect markers to verb stems is a testament to the close relationship between the two grammatical concepts “progressive” and “continuous” and different categories of verbs: In contrast, the relationship between tense markers and the stem “work” does not seem very close, but their relationship is closer than that between the modal marker and the word “swim” (Wen 2000: 73). (3) Quantity iconicity Quantity iconicity means greater quantities of form reflect greater quantities in meaning but less predictable information. That is to say, in linguistic communication, the information that is larger in amount, more important, less predictable or less direct will be given more syntactic components and a relatively complicated syntactic structure. Quantity iconicity can be exemplified in the reduplication of words, as in the sentence “he ran and ran and ran and ran,” the repeated usage of “ran” shows a more vigorous action than what “he ran” does. George Lakoff pointed out that reduplication applied to noun turns singular to plural or collective; reduplication

13.3

Classification of Iconicity and Its Manifestation in Language

275

applied to verb indicates continuation or completion; reduplication applied to adjective indicates intensification or increase. This quantity iconicity can also be found in the morphological structure of words, that is, “addition,” which is the mix of the morphological segmentation with the semantic segmentation in the process of word formation, is implied in the word formation of varied kinds. For instance, Russian phrases дpyг-нeдpyг (friendenemy), быль-нeбыль (truth-fable), дaлeкo-нeдaлeкo (farness-proximity) and вoля-нeвoля (freedom-restraint) all clearly reflect such characteristics. Quantity iconicity is also closely associated with the social distance between speakers. Take Russian greetings as an example: The more intimate relations two participants have, the shorter the greetings are. For example, здpaвcтвyйтe (hello) may be varied according to the closeness of relationship as follows: здpaвcтвyйтe-здpacтвyйть-здpacтyйть-дpacтyйть-дpacьcьть-дpacьть-зpcь. The far left greeting that is the longest of all variants demonstrates the weakest ties between the speakers, while the far right the strongest ones. (4) Symmetrical iconicity Symmetrical iconicity is defined as “symmetrical representation corresponds to the symmetrical relationship of the concepts represented.” This principle seems to contradict the aforementioned linear iconicity, for language is asymmetrical in form, and we cannot say two things at the same time. Haiman pointed out that, contrary to our imagination, conceptual symmetry is, despite the limitation of linear features, actually one of the easiest and most often expressed relations in the form of diagrammatic iconicity in human language. Such symmetry is usually expressed in fixed patterns. For instance: (12) The more he eats, the fatter he gets. This example manages to express its symmetry through the structure of “the +comparative form of an adjective.” (5) Asymmetrical iconicity Asymmetrical relationships are manifested, strictly speaking, in aforementioned linear iconicity and proximity iconicity. Asymmetrical iconicity here refers to a type of asymmetry observed by Leonard Talmy in sentences which reflects a distinction between cognitive-semantic categories of FIGURE and GROUND.” (Lin 1995: 41) For instance: (13) 自行车在屋子旁边/The bike is near the house. (14) *屋子在自行车旁边/The house is near the bike. In everyday conversation, (13) is more common than (14). It is because that “the bike,” as a variable element, is FIGURE expressed as a topic while “the house” as a reference object, is GROUND as part of a comment. Hence, we can see an asymmetrical diagrammatic correspondence between topic/comment representation and FIGURE/GROUND cognition.

276

13

The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

There are some more examples: (15) (16) (17) (18)

Aнтoнпoxoжнaeгooтцa./Anton resembles his father. *OтeцAнтoнaпoxoжнaAнтoнa./Anton’s father resembles Anton. 他睡觉的时候做了一个梦/He had a dream while he slept. *他做梦的时候睡了一个觉/He slept while he had a dream.

Similarly, sentences like (15) and (17) are much more often heard in daily life compared with (16) and (18), for the reason that “Anton” and “dream” are only FIGURE (or topic) instead of GROUND (or comment). (6) Categorical iconicity If we look at the concepts of linguistic signs that fall into the same category, we will find an obvious trend: the linguistic units belonging to the same formal category are also cognitively similar. George Lakoff argued that linguistic categories should be of the same type as other categories in our conceptual system. Evidence about the nature of linguistic categories should contribute to a general understanding of cognitive categories in general. One way in which this iconicity is manifested is where a “basic/non-basic” asymmetry in the cognitive categories corresponds to a “marked/unmarked” asymmetry in the linguistic categories. Taking singular and plural as a general example, a singular is a basic number expressed by no marker, whereas a plural is a non-basic number expressed by a marker. There are of course some exceptions, such as мopкoвь (carrot) and пopox (gunpowder) in Russian. The two collective words are both “unmarked” and if taking a “marked” form of мopкoвкa or пopoшинa, they may change from plural to singular. This seems to be contrary to the iconic principles, but through close analysis of these words, we shall see that they could not demonstrate more about categorical iconicity. The reason is that the collective nouns representing categories are characterized by the state of being collective and massive, which is an unmarked meaning, and their combination with a “marked” form would turn them into singulars that feature marked meanings. In addition, Wang Yin also summed up markedness iconicity, thinking that the development from unmarkedness to markedness is similar to the natural order of cognition. We hold that this kind of iconicity is an extension of categorical iconicity, thus no further discussion is needed. It should be noted that the iconicities listed above do not stand alone in language, but interrelate and interact with each other. Sometimes, the iconicities in the same linguistic form would work together and show a strong synergy; other times, though, they would counteract and compete with each other. Therefore, we should combine many factors together when studying the iconicity of linguistic signs.

13.3

Classification of Iconicity and Its Manifestation in Language

277

13.3.3 Metaphoric Iconicity Metaphor, as a kind of icon, is supposed to embody a unique iconicity, as its denotation requires a “third person” to complete. However, scholars haven’t conducted further research on it as they focus more on the similarity of diagrams. Masako Hiraga once elaborated on metaphoric iconicity, and here we might as well give an introduction to her main points of view. She classified this iconicity into the following three types: grammatical metaphor, conventional metaphor and poetic metaphor.

13.3.3.1

Grammatical Metaphor

Grammatical metaphor involves a cognitive domain mapped to a grammatical domain, which resembles the concept of “imagery” proposed by Ronald Langacker. “Imagery” is an important concept in cognitive grammar, which means that the meaning of a word is not only a scene formed by the word in the human brain, but also a concrete way of forming this scene, namely imagery. For example: (19) Bill sent a walrus to Joyce. (20) Bill sent Joyce a walrus. From the perspective of generative grammar, the two sentences are synonymous, but they represent two different ways or imageries to observe the same thing from the perspective of cognitive grammar, with slightly different metaphoric iconicity and meanings. The preposition “to” in (19) is used to indicate the way of transferring the walrus, but it is missing in (20), with the two parallel nouns placed behind the verb indicating the former “owning” the latter, and thus, Joyce’s claim on the walrus is highlighted (Shen 1994: 11–12).

13.3.3.2

Conventional Metaphor

There are many examples of conventional metaphor, such as: (21) Life is a game. In real life, the domain (life) that needs to be understood has a direct correspondence with the domain (game) we already understand: a life has a beginning and an end like a game; there are rules to follow and you may either win or lose. The following sentences are the specific interpretation of conventional metaphor: (22) He is a real loser in life. (23) He won every game of life to reach top. (24) You must observe the rules in doing anything.

278

13

The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

(25) He struck out in his last two business ventures. (26) If you don’t dress neatly, you won’t get to first base when you look for a job. (27) I had to pinch-hit for our chairman.

13.3.3.3

Poetic Metaphor

Iconicity is a universal phenomenon in poetry language. Pierre Fontanier pointed out that poetry cares more about iconicity than truth. It is committed to creating figures of speech, which makes language colorful and turns it into moods and scenes or, as we can say, vivid pictures (quoted from Wang Yin 2001: 339). Ma Zhiyuan, a Chinese poet during the Yuan Dynasty (1206–1368), wrote a famous poem titled Autumn Thoughts. (28) Withered vines, olden trees, evening crows; Tiny bridge, flowing brook, hamlet homes; Ancient road, wind from west, bony horse; The sun is setting, Broken man, far from home, roams and roams. This poem itself is a vivid picture. Through the picture, we could experience the feeling of a person who is far from home, which might be the charm of poetic metaphor. Some modern poems also adopt forms which seem like that of the things they describe, for example, I(a le af fa ll s) one l iness

At first sight, this is not a poem, but a word game. In the poem, there are just four words—“a leaf falls” and “loneliness”—divided into five parts; “a leaf falls” are placed in the parentheses interspersed in the word “loneliness.” The poet does not mean to mystify readers, but to let the reader see the poem through a picture (Huang 1987: 61). Then, the abstract concept of “loneliness” is presented metaphorically through the concrete image of a falling leaf.

13.3

Classification of Iconicity and Its Manifestation in Language

279

According to the trichotomy of signs proposed by Peirce, we list the iconicity embodied in image, diagram and metaphor. Although there are some differences in their iconicities, it is difficult to completely differentiate them from each other, as their iconicity degree is different and some iconicities are reflected in the static structure of language while others in the process of using language.

13.4

Iconicity and Phonetic Meaning

Phonetic meaning refers to the similarity relation between a certain sound and a certain meaning which is determined by national consciousness. Phonetic meaning is actually an extension of imagic iconicity and the determination of it is a historical process which comes into being unconsciously. The phenomenon of phonetic meaning has long been noticed. Mikhail Lomonosov, who influenced the formation of the modern Russian literary language, found that constant repetitions of the letter a can create splendid, spacious, profound effects and a sudden fear; increasing the usage of e, и, ь, ю will create a feeling of gentle caress and a physical sense of being miserable and tiny; the letter я can show joy, happiness, tenderness and hobby; and the letters o, y, ы reflect things that can cause hatred, jealousy, fear and sorrow. Danish Linguist Otto Jespersen also drew a similar conclusion by comparison: [i] is light, little, beautiful and friendly, while[u] is thick, empty, dark, depressed and bitter. Phonetic meanings in Chinese are mainly reflected in phonograms, in which the words featuring similar sounds must have close meanings. Yang Shuda illustrated this phenomenon in his book A Supplement to the Study of Moderate Learning. He found that the high-level tone and falling tone of “Yan” (燕 and 晏) contain mostly the meaning of “white”; the sound of “Zeng” (曾) usually carries the meanings of “repetition,” “increase” and “great”; the sound of “Chi” (赤), “Zhe” (者) and “Zhu” (朱) mostly has the meaning of “red”; the sound of “Yong” (邕), “Rong” (容) and “Yong” (庸) often contain the meaning of “hindrance”; the sound of “Zhong” (重), “Zhu” (竹) and “Nong” (农) often represents the meaning of “thick”; and the sound of “Qu” (取) and “Zou” (奏) mostly contains the meaning of “gathering” (Wang 1994: 15). From the perspective of semiotics, phonetic meanings refer to those meanings that are imposed on phonetic symbols in accordance with people’s association. A phoneme is the smallest unit of sound divided by physical and physiological properties of speech sounds, and it does not have meaning by itself. However, with the development of language, language users have associated phonemes with meanings, thus exerting a “rational imposition” on phonemes, that is, “meaning orientation.” Finally, an inevitable correlation is established between phonemes and meanings in human minds, and human’s “experience and perception” plays a key role in the formation of phonetic meanings.

280

13

The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

The formation of phonetic meanings can be attributed to two factors if analyzed in detail. One is physical and physiological properties of phonemes. Leonid Krysin argued that there is a fixed correlation between the openness and voicedness of sounds “a” and “o” and the characteristics such as “big,” “many,” “slow” and “thick.” On the contrary, the closeness and voicelessness of their sounds are closely associated with features like “small,” “weak” and “thin” (Krysin 1980: 20). Obviously, the “correlation” here is the result of people associating the objective factors such as pitch, intensity, duration of phonemes, position of vocal organs and working conditions with the nature of reality. The other cause is that accidental aggregation makes phonemes meaningful. If a phoneme occurs repeatedly in words with a certain kind of meaning, the meaning could be stamped on this recurring phoneme in a generalized form. Thus, even if this phoneme occurs alone, it reminds speakers of a subconscious association of meaning. For example, phonemes [p] and [p’] often occur in words with the meaning of “noise”: гpoм (thunder), гpoxoт (crash), гpeмeть (to boom), взpыв (to burst), кpик (to bawl), cкpeжeт (to rasp), тpecк (to crack). Therefore, phonemes [p] and [p’] are associated with the general meaning of “noise” in the minds of Russian speakers. In order to get a deep understanding of phonetic meaning, we choose “onomatopoeia” as our focus to make a comparative analysis (mainly taking Russian words as examples).

13.4.1 Phonetic Meanings of Vowels [a] is an extra-low central vowel. Because its roundness is bigger than those of other vowels, it is usually used to present people’s hearty laughs and cries, animals’ cries and sonorous voices of nature, such as xa-xa (ha-ha), ya-ya (wah-wah); гa-гa (goose’s cackle), квa-квa (frog’s croak), кpя-кpя (duck’s quack), кyдax-тax-тax (hen’s cackle); бaц (snap), звяк (clatter), xpaп (snore), шмяк (pop down). It’s also the case in other languages. The hearty laughs like ha-ha, and ga-ga in Chinese, ha-ha in English, wa-ha-ha and sak-sak in Japanese and kyakkya in Kazakh; the sharp voice made by objects like pi-pa and hua-la in Chinese, clac (snap) in French, klats-chen (applause) in Germany, etc. [i] and [e] are front high vowel and front middle vowel, respectively. When they are pronounced, vocal cords are pressed and fine noises are always made. So they are used to describe soft sounds and birds’ warble as well as the bird names based on such warbles, e.g., cип (light hoarse voice), xи-xи (soft laughter), cкpип (frizzle), блeять (baa), лeпeт (babbling), плecк (gurgling), чик-чиpик (birds’ twittering), пиcк (birds’ squeak), чив-чив (canary’s warble), чибиc (Lapwing warble), чиж (siskin’s twittering), cтpиж (swift’s warble), щeбeт (birds’ chattering), чeчeт (redpoll’s singing). Phonetic meanings like these can also be found in other languages. Take [i] as an example, ji-ji, ji-zha, and zhi-zhi in Chinese refer to birds’ twittering; min-min, lin-lin and chi-chi-chi in Japanese represent cicadas’ chirping, chestnut buntings’ singing, and insects’ peeping, respectively; chip,

13.4

Iconicity and Phonetic Meaning

281

cheep, twitter, pipe, and peep all describe birds’ twittering; tirili in German intimates orioles’ cheepings and tschilp, swallow’s peeping; pipier in French means birds’ twittering. In Russian, [e] has an additional descriptive function when used to imitate some sharp voices like cкpeжeт (screech), вepeщaть (scream), клeкoтaть (scream of birds of prey), peгoтaть (neigh), cтpeкaть (scream), шeлeп (lash of whip); [i] is not typically used in this way except in words like cкpип (creak), cвиcт (whistle), визг (yelp). In English, however, the opposite is true. [i] is typically used in words like creak, shriek, screech, screak, scream and shrill. [ы] is an extra-high central vowel and generally doesn’t exist in other languages. In Russian, it’s usually used to describe animals’ voices like выть (howl of wolves or bark of dogs), мычaть (cattle’s moo), кypлы (cranes’ whoop), тypлыкaть (birds’ coo), цыкaть (the howl of beasts or insects). [u] and [o] are widely used in all languages, but their phonetic meanings are quite different. In Russian, they typically simulate those low and unclear voices and rumbles. Take onomatopoetic words as examples: бypчaть (grunt), бyчaть (bees buzz), гнycить (mumble), гyдeть (rumble), жyжжaть (buzz), жypчaть (susurrus), зyдeть (monotonous buzz), шypшaть (rustle), шyшyкaть (rustle), бyлькaть(bubble), бopмoтaть (mutter), квoктaть (murmrur), бoтaть (rub-a-dub), poптaть (muffle), гpoxoтaть (rumble) and клoкoтaть (grunt). In Chinese, the aforementioned meanings are often expressed by a back vowel combined with the nasal consonant [ŋ]. Here are some examples: teng-teng-teng, ceng-ceng-ceng, deng-deng-deng (heavy foot steps), hong-long (rumble), hong-hong (fire booming), dong-dong (knocking a door), pu-tong (splash) and weng-weng (buzz). Other languages usually use nasalized vowels to express such meanings, like bump, rumpus, thump, boom, rumble and thunder, hum, plump and slump in English; vrombir (insects’ buzz), boum and gronder (thunderclap) in French; summ (bees’ buzz), bum-bum (thunder) and plumps (thud) in German.

13.4.2 Phonetic Meanings of Consonants When stop consonants are pronounced, noise consonants first close the passage of the nasal cavity to form an obstruction, and then suddenly open the lips when the air flows out, resulting in the sound effect of blasting. In order to adapt to this, many onomatopoetic words use their consonants as their final or first sound. For example, in Russian, many onomatopoeic words are ended with voiceless stop consonants [p], [k] and fricatives [x] to increase the “sudden, short” sound sense, such as тoп (stamp one’s foot), xpyп (snap), шлeп (pat with one’s palm),звяк (clang), cтyк (thump), бyx (fall with a bump), гpox (fall with a thud). In English and French, this phenomenon is also very common, for example, in English we have clap, clip, crack, slap, snap, and in French, flip-flap, crac and claque. The consonants [b], [p], [d] and [t] also appear frequently at the beginning of onomatopoeic words, and they are often used to simulate mechanical and object impacts, for instance, in Russian,

282

13

The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

бyм-бyм (sound of cannon), пиф-пaф (gunshot), динь-динь (ringtone), тик-тaк (ticktack); in English, bang, boom, Puff, ding-dong; in Chinese, pa, beng, tu-tu, pi-li-pa-la and so on. In addition, hard stop consonants [k] and [g] can also be used to simulate sound of animals, for instance, in Russian, кpя-кpя (duck’s quack), кpaкpa (crow’s croak), квa-квa (frog’s croak), кy-кy (cuckoo’s cooing),гa-гa (goose’s gaggle), гaв-гaв (dog’s bark); in English, cackle, cluck, quack, gaggle, gobble; in French, glousser (hen’s cackle), croasser (crow’s croak); in Chinese, ga-ga, gua-gua (duck’s quack), ge-ge-da (hen’s cackle) and so on. In consonants, the sound of fricatives is characterized by a strong frictional effect caused by the passage of air, which is very similar to the natural sound. Therefore, fricatives are abundant in onomatopoeic words. For example, buzz and shush sounds in Russian are often used to simulate the rustling, humming and other sounds caused by friction in the human world and the nature, such as (in the case of onomatopoeic verbs) жyжжaть (buzz), жypчaть (whisper), cвepчaть (Cricket singing), cвиcтaть (for animals), cикaть (for children), cипeть, шapкaть (fainting), шapшaть (small animal squeaking), зyдeть (monotonous hum) and so on. There are also many similar phenomena in other languages, such as in Chinese, sha-sha, su-su, sa-sa, se-se, sou-sou, and, in English, rustle, whisper, sough, swish and susurration. [m] and [n] are two nasal consonants caused by air flowing through the nasal cavity. This phonological feature makes their phonetic meanings often manifested in imitating human or animal sounds coming out of nose and tumultuous noise, such as in Russian, гнycить (speak or sing in a nasal voice), мypлыкaть (cat snoring), cмopкaть (blow one’s nose), шмыкaть (inhale loudly through one’s nose), мямлить (mumble), гaм (uproar), гoмoн (hubbub), шyм (noise); in Chinese, nan-nan (mutter), nang-nang (murmur), nie-ru (speak haltingly; in English, sneeze, snuffle, snort, sniffle, snivel, snuff, sniff, etc. Coronal trill [r], a distinctive phoneme in Russian, is often used to describe magnificent sounds as it is formed by forcing air to flow past the tongue while rhythmically flapping the tongue tip against the alveolar ridge. Here are some examples: p-p-p (wind roaring), тp-p-p (thunder), ypa (hurrah), гpoxoт (crash), тpax (boom), бypлить (poppling), гapкaть (yell), op (scream), peв (howl), peгoт (burst out laughing) and poкoт (roar). Although in linguistic signs, the phenomenon of phonetic meanings is not the main subject of language research and not noticed or even acknowledged by many people, we believe it is of great value and could not be ignored as long as it exists objectively. More important reasons are as follows: firstly, phonetic meanings are closely related to iconicity of linguistic signs; secondly, “this notional means is based on certain significance of individual letters or a class of letters (sounds and sound pairs, author’s notes), which undoubtedly exerts a considerable impact on the original word-formation” (Humboldt 1984: 93).

13.5

13.5

The Iconicity in Chinese Language and Culture

283

The Iconicity in Chinese Language and Culture

Iconicity is of great importance to language and culture, especially Chinese language and culture. Image perception plays a decisive role as iconicity can be cognitive-related or associative-related. From the perspective of thinking science, Westerners consider abstract “sounds” as their basic modes of symbolic thinking, forming their thinking quality that emphasizes abstraction, while Chinese people’s symbolic thinking focuses on images, thus enabling them to develop their imaginal thinking abilities and endowing their symbolic thinking with imagination and creation. Therefore, to observe and analyze the characteristics of Chinese language and culture from the perspective of sign iconicity will break new ground and pave new ways for semiotic studies combining Chinese and Western characteristics. For Chinese language and culture, it is more appropriate to replace “iconicity” with “portrait (肖像),” as “icon” actually means “representation of a holy person,” and more importantly, “portrait” can underline the concept of “image perception” and be understood better. In this way, we can give a definition for “iconicity in language and culture,” that is, the sign or code is endowed with a linguistic and cultural iconicity when a linguistic sign or a cultural code shares some certain cognitive or associative similarities with the signified and their relationship can be perceived. Iconicity, in fact, played an important role in Chinese primitive culture, which is shown in totems, idolatry, some etiquette and some magics. Systematic iconicity theories can be traced back to Chuang Tzu’s language-meaning debate, Confucian rectification of names, and especially iconicity in the I Ching (or Book of Changes), which can be said to be a concentrated reflection of the thought of iconic signs. In I Ching’s system, the related concept referring to iconicity is “image,” which is the most common and important concept in this book. What is “image”? To put is simply, “image” means “likeness,” and according to the semiotics theory, it means similarity relation between the signifier and the signified. The flow direction in I Ching’s system can be expressed as follows: meaning or rule ! sixty-four hexagrams (divinatory symbols) ! Ci (line statements) ! Yi Zhuan (commentaries). To be specific, everything in the world refers to meaning or rule, which is an objective existence and has a tendency toward “image”; then saints imitate and endow it with divinatory symbols; it can be explained from the perspective of the semiotics theory that the establishment of hexagrams offers us a standard vision, while “image” can be used to observe or simulate the whole world and all human beings. Divinatory symbols here can be considered as a set of signifiers, and the signifying process of hexagrams is initially explained by regarding line statements as first-level signified (or first-level metalanguage); it can ultimately be further clarified by regarding commentaries as second-level signified (or second-level metalanguage). In conclusion, each “linguistic” sign (hexagram) in I Ching’s system embodies a series of concepts or things by the analogy of “instant surroundings and distant predictions.” We can take Bagua (the Eight Diagrams) as an example (the sixty-four hexagrams are actually the further collocation and derivation of

284

13

The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

Bagua). Its basic linguistic signs (trigram) are yang and yin, respectively, represented by “一” (“unbroken” line) and “– –” (“broken” line), and their eight types are called Eight Diagrams, each representing a certain thing. The trigram Qian stands for Heaven; Kun for Earth; Kan for Water; Li for Fire; Zhen for Thunder; Gen for Mountain; Xun for Wind and Dui for Lake. Then, each trigram can be further interpreted as a series of references (signified) by means of analogy, for example, the trigram Qian represents Heaven, Cycle, King and Father, etc. Influenced by China’s ancient civilization, the iconicity in Chinese language and culture has always been universal, which is shown in the composition of Chinese characters and the descriptive techniques of Chinese literature, and it can be divided into phonetic iconicity, iconicity of Chinese characters and poetic iconicity. First, let us look at phonetic iconicity. Iconicity, as a broad concept, exists not only in the visual field, but also in sound, smell and taste. For example, onomatopoeic words are a kind of phonetic iconicity, as they are not the sound of people and animals itself, but the result of people, based on the principle of communication and within the maximum range, allowed by phonetics, imitating such sound for principle of communication. That is to say, onomatopoeic words are based on sound and represent concepts and phenomena related to sound. Because of the similar relationship between onomatopoeic words and their natural prototypes, their connection is demonstrable. The Chinese language boasts a large amount of onomatopoeic words, which can be divided, in terms of phonetic structures, into eleven types. These types are (1) “A” type: ping (乒), pang (乓), beng (嘣), wa (哇), dong (咚), ceng (噌), hua (哗), hong (轰), kuang (哐), dang (当), chi (哧), etc.; (2) “AA” type: xi’xi (唏唏), ou’ou (呕呕), zhi’zhi (吱吱), wu’wu (呜呜), jiu’jiu (啾啾), lin’lin (辚辚), cong’cong (淙淙), chan’chan (潺潺), nan’nan (喃喃), etc.; (3) “AB” type: ge’beng (咯嘣), lang’dang (锒铛), hu’long (忽隆), gu’dong (咕咚), pu’tong (扑通), gua’ji (呱唧), ci’leng (刺棱), etc.; (4) “AAB” type: ding’ding dang (叮叮当), ti’ti da (提提嗒), dong’dong qiang (咚咚呛), pi’pi pa (劈劈啪), etc.; (5) “ABB” type: peng ca’ca (蓬嚓嚓), hua la’la (哗啦啦), chi liu’liu (哧溜溜), ge deng’deng (格登登), sha la’la (沙拉拉), gu dong’dong (咕咚咚), etc.; (6) “ABBB” type: pu leng’leng’leng (扑愣愣愣), gu lu’lu’lu (咕噜噜噜), hong long’long’long (轰隆隆隆), etc.; (7) “AABB” type: ji’ji zha’zha (唧唧喳喳), zhi’zhi ya’ya (吱吱 呀呀), etc.; (8) “ABCB” type: ji la zha la (唧啦喳啦), pi tong pu tong (噼通扑通), du lu gu lu (嘟噜咕噜), etc.; (9) “A ‘li’ BC” type: ji li gua la (叽里呱啦), pi li pa la (噼里啪啦), hua li guang lang (哗哩咣啷), etc.; (10) “A ‘li’ AC” type: wu li wu la (呜哩呜拉), wa li wa la (哇哩哇拉), hu li hu lu (呼哩呼噜), hu li hu la (呼哩呼啦), etc.; and (11) “ABCD” type: ding ling dang lang (丁零当郎), ping ling pang lang (乒零乓啷), ding ling dong long (丁呤咚隆), etc. Then, let us look at the iconicity of Chinese characters. Some of them are pictographic characters formed through the imitating process of “when looking up, he contemplates the brilliant forms exhibited in the sky; when looking down, he surveyed the patterns shown on the earth.” The signifier of a pictographic character is actually a picture or a sign, and its signified and meaning could be concluded from its shape. Chinese characters are formed through imitating vivid expressions, which, as one basic feature, reflects a symbolic activity that establishes the

13.5

The Iconicity in Chinese Language and Culture

285

relationship between Chinese people and their living environment in a motivated, visualized and perceptible way. The vivid expressions of Chinese characters could be accurately described by the technical term “imagery,” which is why Chinese characters are called ideograms by Westerners. In terms of expression mechanisms, “imagery” actually includes two essential aspects: “imaging” and “analogy.” As we understand, “imaging” is to pursue an identical meaning between the character pattern and its literal meaning and replace the signified (literal meaning) by the signifier (character pattern), so as to eliminate the gap between them; while “analogy” is to show the tendency of separation and gap expansion between the character pattern and its literal meaning, so that people can glimpse the meaning behind the character pattern and see the signified. These two aspects are, respectively, reflected in pictographic characters “鹿” (deer) and “羊” (sheep). The original pattern of “鹿” is equivalent to its original meaning; while the original pattern of “羊” (a sheep head) is not identical with its literal meaning (the whole sheep). Thus, the character of “鹿” is formed by “imaging” (isomorphism) and the character of “羊” by “analogy” (synecdoche) (Meng 2002). The iconicity of Chinese characters mainly manifests itself in three phenomena of Xiangxing (pictographic), Zhishi (indicative) and Huiyi (associative). According to Ban Gu, a Chinese historian of the Eastern Han Dynasty (25–189), these three categories are also named Xiangxing (representing shape), Xiangshi (representing thing) and Xiangyi (representing meaning), respectively, which indicates a distinctive air of iconicity. In terms of pictographic characters, Xu Shen, a Chinese scholar-official and philologist of the Eastern Han Dynasty, explained, “pictographic characters are created by mimicking the outer shape of the material objects, such as ‘日’ (sun) and ‘月’ (moon).” Since pictographic characters originate from picture writing, there are some similarities and differences between them. Both pictographic characters and pictures are looking for similarity in form, but the former features a simpler shape. A case in point is that the character☉, without the shining light around it, still reminds people of the sun. More examples can be listed. The characters “象” (elephant), “牛” (cattle) and “羊” (sheep) still have characteristics of animals they represent—a long nose, a long tail and two horns, respectively, even though now they are simplified. Other examples are: “目” (eyes), “口” (mouth), “廿” (twenty), “右” (right), “合” (close the mouth) and “引” (drawing the bow). As regards indicative characters, “their structure can be recognized with just a glimpse and their meaning with a closer observation, such as ‘上’ (up) and ‘下’ (down),” Xu Shen stated. Some of such characters are pure indicative signs, while others combine pictographic characters with indicative signs. On the one hand, many indicative characters are created on the basis of pictographic characters; on the other, indicative characters are symbolic and abstract while pictographic characters are realistic and concrete. For example, the characters “本” and “末” can be identified by different positions of the two components—“木” and “一.” Other indicative characters include “刃” (knife-edge) and “亦” (also).

286

13

The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

Associative characters, in the words of Xu Shen, are “created by combining two or more pictographic or indicative characters to introduce a new meaning, such as characters ‘武’ (martial arts) and ‘信’ (believe or letter).” In comparison, they feature relatively weaker iconicity and thus embody strong subjectivity. It is universally recognized that associative characters are putting the word components which have their own meanings together. For instance, the character “休” (rest) consists of two components—“人” (person) and “木” (tree), which means if a person leans against a tree, he must be having a rest (“休”); “从” (follow) features a shape of two persons side by side, which is just like one man following another; “男” (man), which can be associated to laboring on the field, naturally refers to man; “水” means water and three “水” pilling together (“淼”) naturally points to a wide expanse of water. The iconicity of Chinese characters also involves interesting phenomena, namely the schematic characteristics of their inner structures, which mainly employ iconicity motivations such as spacing and position of a character’ structure to suggest a certain meaning. A better knowledge of this characteristic can be acquired through the following examples: (1) words related to “quantity”: 空—满 (empty-full), 聚—分/化 (gather-separate), 欠—盈 (waxes-wanes),个—群/众 (individual-group/mass), 木—林 (tree-woods); (2) words related to “quality”: 白— 黑 (white- black), 小—庞 (small-huge), 干—湿 (dry-wet); (3) words related to “manner”: 肥—瘦/瘠 (fat-thin), 高—低/矬 (high-low/short), 横—竖/直 (horizontal-vertical), 立—卧 (stand-lie), 铺—叠 (spread-fold). Obviously, this kind of phenomenon has a certain iconic function. Although its research needs to be further deepened and more objective, its characteristics and value are unquestionable. Finally, let us explore the iconicity of Chinese poetry. Chinese poetry is a gem of Chinese culture and civilization. Its employment of Fu, Bi and Xing, three important figures of speech, makes it different from Western civilization and forms its unique feature and charm. Here, we attempt to analyze Xing and its relation with the iconicity of linguistic signs. Xing, according to ancient Chinese writer Liu Xie’s view, is a “mental stimulation” through which writers elaborate their ideas by depicting the subjects in a roundabout way. As Zhu Xi, a renowned poet and philosopher of the Song Dynasty (960–1279), put it, “Xing is to say something first so as to lead to what the poet is going to intone.” Here is an example from Peach Blossoms of Ode of Wei in Classic of Poetry: The peach tree is slender and sturdy, Flaming red are its blossoms.

In this poem, the scene of peach blossoming implies a jubilant atmosphere when young girls get married and brilliant flowers symbolize youthful and beautiful brides. “Xing” is comprised of two basic parts: one is “objects” or “thing” and the other is “message” or “mood” built up through the poetic images; they work together in

13.5

The Iconicity in Chinese Language and Culture

287

harmony to stir up readers’ feelings and cause an inspirational and associational effect. Examining these two parts from the perspective of semiotics (here it goes beyond single literal signs to the level of text signs), we may find that the former constitutes the signifier and material carrier of signs while the latter the signified and carried things of the signs, reflecting some social information. The language of poetry seeks to readers’ imagination rather than their feelings. Poetry, therefore, is in essence an imaginary art that requires its art images be created by hiding the writer’s sentiments in a setting or a scene. The very combination of Xing and Fu can highlight what the art of poetry is. In other words, when using Xing in composing poems, there must be perceptual or associative similarities between the signifier (thing) and the signified (what the poet is going to intone) of linguistic signs. Such relation can be perceived vividly, thus bearing a sense of iconicity. The reasons why “Xing” can embody a certain poetic iconicity are various and can be concluded as follows: First, “Xing” aims at a mental stimulation that is the concrete and tangible relationship among people, and that as an objective existence has timeliness and spatiality itself. For instance, the most common feelings—love and missing—always happen in a certain setting, either a slavery society or a feudal society in terms of time; and either in the corner of a city wall, in a garden, before the flowers or under the moon in terms of space. Therefore, the feelings of love and missing should be conveyed naturally from subjectivity to objectivity and from feelings to things such as The moon shines bright; My love’s snow-white. (Selected from Moonrise of Odes of Chen) And, The fox goes slow, slower On the dam of the river My heart is wrenched with care: He has no clothes to wear! (Selected from The Fox of Odes of Wei) Second, emotion can be materialized with something as its media and token. For example, By the shores of that marsh, There are rushes and lotus plants. There is the beautiful lady; I am tortured for her, but what avails it? Waking or sleeping, I do nothing; From my eyes and nose that water streams. (Selected from By the Shores of that Marsh of Odes of Chen) Do-do, the grebes do coo At shoal amid the stream; The lad is keen to woo The lass, a virtuous dream

288

13

The Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

(Selected from The Grebes Coo of Odes of Zhou) From the above poems, an internal relation is visualized between lovers and objects: the scene that rushes and lotus grow together at the pool stimulates an imagination of lingering affection; and the harmonious chirping of female and male grebes highlights a delightful love between the lad and the lass. The poet’s mood has been materialized to some extent and expressed secretly by the iconicity of objective things. Such examples can be found here and there in classic Chinese poetry. For example, a piece of winter clothing shows parents’ concern for their children traveling far away from home; words from heart imply the deep friendship; cock crowing and frost moon in a strange land add some nostalgia; and nomad flutes and twilight bugles are enough to depress those expeditioners. Third, the reason why the objective image features iconicity is that it has something in common with real life and is easy to enable people to combine their emotion with some experiences in life. For example, My husband is away on service, And I know not when he will return. Where is he now? The fowls roost in their holes in the walls; And in the evening of the day, The goats and cows come down from the hill. But my husband is away on service. How can I but keep taking of him? (Selected from Husband Away on Service of Odes of Wang) The scenes that “The fowls roost in their holes in the walls” and that “The goats and cows come down from the hill” are unique at twilight, which is prone to be associated with family reunion and wife’s missing for her husband. These objects, by means of “Xing,” represent an ardent yearning for the husband who travels in servitude, making a harmonious and complete iconicity in poetry. Fourth, some objective images feature iconicity not because of what the above has explained but because there is a correspondence between their natural attributes and the human mind formed through long social practice. That is to say, there are some similarities and correspondence between the form or motion structure of objects and the emotional structure of man as subject, causing comparatively fixed connections in the human mind. For example, mandarin duck stands for lovers, fish for marriage, tiger for valor, snake for brutality, pine for faithfulness and plum for nobleness; high mountain produces a sense of loftiness, river a sense of upheaval, autumn wind a sense of loneliness and severe frost a sense of severity; and red represents enthusiasm, blue silence, yellow solemnity and white purity. These objects are emotional in themselves and thus the iconicity of their symbolic signifier can be captured vividly once written in poetry.

References

289

References Yin, W. (王寅). (1999). Iconicity of linguistic symbols (“论语言符号象似性”). Foreign Languages and Their Teaching (《外语与外语教学》), 5, 4. Yin, W. (王寅). (2002). The philosophical basis for cognitive linguistics: Embodied philosophy. (“认知语言学的哲学基础:体验哲学”). Foreign Language Teaching and Research (《外语 教学与研究》), 2, 82–89.

Chapter 14

Two Decades of Semiotic Studies in China

Semiotic studies began in Europe, and there have emerged various semiotic theories and different schools of thought. The semiotic studies in China started much later and were not largely conducted until the 1980s. However, with a profound theoretical foundation, Chinese scholars caught up with the international trend in semiotics in a very short time. Meanwhile, the traditional Chinese culture is loaded with rich semiotic contents, which in turn made the semiotic studies in China especially promising even at the early stage. It can be assumed that the semiotic studies in China will inevitably become an important part of the international studies in this field. While studying semiotics in the Western world, Chinese scholars should also pay close attention to the semiotic studies in China and further promote its development.

14.1

Three Major Periods

The past two decades witnessed three major periods of semiotic studies in China.

14.1.1 The Starting Period (1980–1986) In the early 1980s, Chinese scholars began to participate in the international academic activities related to semiotic studies and timely introduced the latest research development of semiotics into the domestic academic community. During this period, the semiotic research in China focused on introducing the main semiotic ideas from overseas and discussing the basic theories of semiotics. There were This chapter is from the first edition of Linguistic Semiotics (2004). © Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_14

291

292

14

Two Decades of Semiotic Studies in China

about 45 articles on semiotics published in China in this period (an average annual output of less than seven), nearly 40% of which were those introducing the views of semioticians like Saussure and Barthes.

14.1.2 The Maturing Period (1987–1993) The focus of semiotic studies in China had shifted since 1987. First, the discussions on the basic theories of semiotics and linguistic semiotics evolved into more intensive and specific analytical investigations such as research on the linearity and arbitrariness of signs as well as comparative studies on the theories by various semioticians. Second, semiotics, as a methodology and newly formed doctrine, was employed in specific areas of linguistics like semantics and pragmatics. Third, semiotic studies extended to such fields as literature, translation and art. For example, semiotics was used to explain translational phenomena or to explore linguistic dimensions in literature. Fourth, the studies begun to touch upon semiotic contents in traditional Chinese culture which covered, for example, the works of ancient Chinese scholars like Gongsun Long (320–250 BC) and Xun Zi (310–235 BC). With the semiotic studies in China maturing in this period, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences held the first forum on semiotics in 1988 at which related scholars from Beijing and Tianjin were present. After that, the Chinese Association of Logic and the Chinese Research Society for Contemporary Foreign Philosophy each set up an association for semiotic studies. Chinese scholars produced 87 articles on semiotics during this period, an average annual output of more than twelve.

14.1.3 The Thriving Period (1994–2002) Since 1994, the semiotic studies had reached a new level and were conducted in various fields. During this period, the studies presented the following features: (1) Apart from further studies on theories of semiotics and linguistic semiotics, scholars also introduced other theories on narrative semiotics, social semiotics, film semiotics, discourse semiotics and subjective semiotics. About 280 articles on semiotics were published in these eight years, an average annual output of 40-odd. (2) Linguistic semiotics studies in China reached a higher level, especially those on Saussurean linguistics. During this period, Chinese scholars begun to question some of Saussure’s ideas such as the arbitrariness of linguistic signs. With the publication of Saussure’s Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics, some of Saussure’s ideas were clarified, which caused an upsurge in the recognition of Saussure’s insights into linguistics. (3) Semiotics penetrated into many disciplines. As a methodology, it was applied to specific research in many areas, which enlarged the application range of semiotics. It can be said that the semiotic studies in China

14.1

Three Major Periods

293

covered such fields as linguistics, philosophy, literature, culture, art, communications and folklore. (4) Attentions were paid to the status and function of nonverbal signs. The discussion and research on the communicative function of body language were carried out. (5) Deeper exploration and research were done on the semiotic contents in traditional Chinese culture and Chinese classical works. Chinese scholars tried to interpret Chinese historical and cultural phenomena from a semiotic perspective. During this period, academic discussions on semiotics became a common practice in China. The first China Conference on Language and Semiotics was held in Suzhou University in 1994, and the following four conferences were held, respectively, in Shandong University (1996), Southwest Normal University (1998), PLA University of Foreign Language (2000) and Nanjing Normal University (2002), an indication that semiotic studies in China were making steps in the right direction. Relevant research showed that there had been a quick progress in the semiotic studies in China in a short span of time, and Chinese scholars had basically caught up with the trend of international studies on semiotics. One reason for such rapid progress was that Chinese scholars had absorbed the research findings from abroad quickly; another reason was that the traditional Chinese culture is loaded with rich semiotic contents, providing important impetus to and promoting the development of the semiotic studies in China. Semiotic studies in China had penetrated into areas such as philosophy, linguistics, logics, literature, aesthetics, folklore, communications, linguistics of national conditions as well as traditional Chinese culture and filmology. Profound studies were carried out from a semiotic perspective in such fields as philosophy,linguistics, logics and literature.

14.2

Major Research Areas and Accomplishments

Starting in the 1980s, the semiotic studies in China achieved remarkable accomplishments, and within slightly more than two decades, Chinese scholars finished what the Western semioticians did in more than four decades. Semiotic studies in China fall into four research areas: basic theories of semiotics, linguistic semiotics, applications of semiotics and cultural and literary semiotics.

14.2.1 Researches on Basic Theories of Semiotics 14.2.1.1

Introduction and Study of Semiotic Theories from Abroad

Chinese scholars focus their attention on the theories of famous semioticians such as Saussure, Peirce, Morris, Barthes and Bakhtin. At the initial stage, Chinese scholars mainly focused on translating and introducing foreign semiotic works such as Course in General Linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure (translated by Gao

294

14

Two Decades of Semiotic Studies in China

Mingkai, 1985), Introduction to Semiotics by Yoshihiko Ikegami (translated by Zhang Xiaoyun, 1985), Structuralism and Semiotics by Terence Hawkes (translated by Qu Tiepeng, 1987), Semiotics and Interpretation by Robert Scholes (translated by Tan Dali, 1988), Semiology by Pierre Guiraud (translated by Huai Yu, 1988), Signs, Language and Behavior by Charles W. Morris (translated by LuoLan and Zhou Yi, 1989), A Theory of Semiotics by Umberto Eco (translated by Lu Deping, 1990), Elements of Semiology by Roland Barthes (translated by Huang Tianyuan, 1992), Discourse Semiotics by Jean-Claude Coquet (compiled and translated byYu Dongliang, 1997), Voice and Phenomenon: Introduction to the Problem of the Sign in Husserl’s Phenomenology by Jacques Derrida (translated by Du Xiaozhen, 1999) and The Fashion System by Roland Barthes (translated by Ao Jun, 2000). These translated works helped Chinese scholars to better draw on semiotic theories from abroad. At the same time, Chinese scholars also conducted deep, independent and comparative studies on the theories of various semioticians, which mainly focused on the explanation of the theories of linguistic semiotics. Their research achievements include the publications like Roland Barthes’ Semiotics: A Brief Review (1986) by Li Tingkui, Saussure’s Theory of Language (1992) by Liu Runqing, Bakhtin and Social Semiotics (1994) by Hu Zhuanglin and A Linguistic Analysis of Peirce’s Semiotic Theory (1998) by Wang Mingyu.

14.2.1.2

Definition and Classification of Signs

(1) Definition of signs To study semiotics, we first need a correct understanding of sign itself. Chinese scholars’ studies and discussions about sign are not in-depth enough, and most of them adopt the views of some famous semioticians like Saussure, Peirce and Eco. A sign is “the combination of a concept and a sound-image” (Saussure 1996: 101). This definition differentiates between the signifier and the signified, which is of much significance to linguistic researchers. Peirce referred to a sign as “something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity” (Peirce 1995: 99). Eco’s view is more concise that a sign is “something standing for something else” (Eco 1976: 16). The definitions above suggest that a sign has both referential and symbolic meanings, and that it is some code used by people to stand for something else. And to further reveal the nature and features of sign, the views of the School of Double Meaning can be referred to. For example, Soviet linguists Fedor Berezin and Boris Nikolaevich Golovin held that signs function as the material carrier of social information. From this definition, we can see that signs should possess the following characteristics: (1) Signs must be material so that they could be perceived and received as information carrier by people. (2) Signs must transmit the information which is essentially different from signs themselves and represent something else. Otherwise, they would make no sense and cease to be themselves. (3) Signs must convey social information that is subject to social conventions and have no special meaning defined by individuals. Only the

14.2

Major Research Areas and Accomplishments

295

conventional information can be what signs represent (Wang 1999: 5). The views above combine the material and ideological contents of signs and are well recognized by most scholars. (2) Classification of signs Due to the complexity of signs, there is not yet consensus on the classification of signs. According to the origin, productive mode and signifying function of signs, Eco divided signs into three types: natural events, human intentions and poetic expressions. Based on the relationship between the three elements of signs (medium, object and interpretant), Peirce set up the triadic–trichotomy, which includes three core types of signs: icon, index and symbol. American semiotician Thomas Sebeok classified signs into six types: signal, symptom, icon, index, symbol and name. Chinese semioticians also pay much attention to the classification of signs. According to the subjective and objective nature of signs, Li Yanfu grouped signs into two categories: logic category of the objective nature and aesthetics category of the subjective nature. The former includes paralinguistic signs, practical codes, cognitive codes and predictive codes, and the latter falls under three types: art and literature, symbolism and thematics, and the morphology of narrative (Li 1994: 57). Another semiotician Lian Fu believed that it seems more appropriate to sum up all the extra-linguistic signs into five main forms: advertising signs, material signs, behavioral signs, audiovisual signs and natural signs (Lian 1997: 69). We argue that signs can be sorted on the basis of the “denoting relationship,” the relationship between the signifier and the signified. In this way, five categories of signs are summarized: (1) Omen signs or quasi signs—the signs in this category are signs in a broad sense, with the medium and message connected naturally and organically (e.g., smoke in the forest signifies bonfire, and water surface waves indicate fishes moving). (2) Symbolic signs—the signs in this category take the information they deliver and their characteristics and natures as symbols (e.g., the Chinese army emblem which features a five-pointed star with the Chinese characters of “八一,” literally August 1 when PLA was established, in the center symbolizes Chinese People’s Liberation Army, and the pigeon pattern symbolizes peace). (3) Induction signs—the signs in this category, as presumptive signs for delivering information, take visual sense, audio sense and other perception objects as information carrier (e.g., the drumbeat means attack, the gong sound means withdrawal on the battlefield in ancient China, and the traffic lights at intersections direct traffic by light colors). (4) Language signs—the signs in this category since language is the integration of pronunciation, shape and meaning, constitute the fundamental form of communication and information signs and are recognized as the most important sign systems. (5) Substitution signs—the signs in this category, which don’t stand for objects, phenomena or concepts, are called secondary signs for substituting the primary signs (e.g., the multiple signs in mathematics, physics and chemistry, the operating relational symbols in predicate logic, artificial languages, etc.) (Wang 1999: 5–6).

296

14.2.1.3

14

Two Decades of Semiotic Studies in China

Understanding on the Research Fields and Functions of Semiotics

(1) Research fields of semiotics Currently, the understanding on the research fields of semiotics can be roughly divided into three categories. One view holds that semiotic research covers the entire communication, and all the ideographic issues are within the research scope. The second view is that semiotic studies touch upon meaningful and conventional communication patterns. And the third view believes that the studies are, in principle, limited to the signals used in the conventional communication system. Related Chinese research works include On Objects of Semiotic Studies (Xu Aiqiong, 1994), Some Problems in the Contemporary Semiotic Studies (Hu Zhuanglin, 1999) and On the Properties, Scope and Methods of Semiotics (Guo Hong, 2002). (2) Functions of semiotics Regarding the functions of semiotics, modern semioticians divide themselves into two opposing groups. One is too conceited and opinionated, the other quite depressed. The former, seeing everything in the world as signs, believes that semiotics covers the widest range of fields. The latter holds that semiotics as a discipline only exists in talks, and that some undefined problems occur in semiotic theories, like how signs form and what rules them. It should be said that Chinese scholars are fairly objective on the functions of semiotics, and most of them consider semiotics as a philosophy and methodology. Related works include, among others, Research and Functions of Semiotics, (Zhang Weijiang, 1995) and On Functions of Signs (Tu Dejun, 1996). (3) Relation between semiotics and other disciplines • Relation between semiotics and linguistics There generally exist three different opinions on what is exactly the relationship between semiotics and linguistics. The first view is that linguistics is subordinate to semiotics and only a part of it; the second, semiotics is subordinate to linguistics; the third, linguistics and semiotics are two separate disciplines, and each has its own separate range of research. Most well-known scholars agree with the first view that linguistics is a branch of semiotics whose principle is also applied to linguistics. Representative figures are Saussure and Peirce in early times, Jakobson and Halliday in contemporary era as well as French psychologist Jacques Lacan. According to Jean Piaget, these views could be summarized as the linguistic sign is only one aspect of semiotic functions, though it is the most important in most cases. Roland Barthes and some other semioticians, however, saw semiotics as a branch of linguistics. In their opinion, as long as scholars get to some profound

14.2

Major Research Areas and Accomplishments

297

aspects of sociology, they could encounter some clusters that are beyond linguistics but still belong to semiotics, and these clusters could only be explained by speech acts which may affect all semiotic systems. Umberto Eco held a neutral point of view that “verbal language is the most powerful semiotic device that man has invented,” and since the position of linguistics is more stable than other semiotic systems, semiotics depends on linguistic concepts in many aspects (Hu 1999: 2). We share the similar view that linguistics and semiotics should be developed independently, while the two can interact with each other to exploit the advantages of integrated disciplines. “‘Semiotics’ was proposed by Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, but since its inception, it has never been successfully blended with ‘linguistics,’ about which semioticians and linguists all feel a sense of ‘imbalance’ and ‘disappointment,’ so it is long past time to establish linguistic semiotics.” (Wang 1999: 5–6) • In addition to the discussions on the relationship between semiotics and linguistics, Chinese scholars also study the connections of semiotics with diverse disciplines, such as philosophy, logics, communication and linguistic culturology. Related works include The Relationship between Semiotics and Linguistic Culturology (Wu Guohua, 1994), On the Relationship between Semiotics and Communication (Chen Daode, 1997), The Relationship of Semiotics with Linguistics and Logics (Xiang Rongxian, 1998), Folkloristics and Semiotics (Gao Letian, 1998), Logics and Semiotics (Zeng Xiangyun, 1999), etc. (4) An overview of the history and development of semiotics Researches in this area are mainly carried out on two themes: • Research on the history of Western semiotics: The Origin and Development of Western Semiotics (Hu Xiaohui, 1991), The Origin and Development of Semiotics (Gou Zhixiao, 1993), A Brief Introduction to the Theoretical Origin of Modern Semiotics (Zhou Zhenxiang, 1999), A Preliminary Study on Modern Western Semiotics (Lin Jia, 2000), An Overview of the Development of Lotman’s Semiotics of Culture (Li Su, 2002), On the Historical Evolution of Semiotic Studies in Russia (Chen Yong, 2002), etc. • Research on the history of Chinese semiotics. These quests for semiotic theories are based on the analysis of literature in ancient China, such as Semiotics in Gongsun Long’s On Name and Nature (Li Xiankun, 1993), Semiotic Significance of Xun Zi’s Rectification of Names (Xu Aiqiong, 1993), Semiotic Nature of I Ching (Zhou Wenying, 1994), Semiotics in Pre-Qin Philosophy (Gou Zhixiao, 1995), Semiotics in Mohist Canon (Li Xiankun, 1996) and An Exploration of Semiotic Thoughts in Shuowen Jiezi (Gao Letian, 1997), which, we believe, will contribute to the semiotic studies in China and even the world.

298

14

Two Decades of Semiotic Studies in China

14.2.2 Researches on Linguistic Semiotics 14.2.2.1

On Saussure’s Linguistic Semiotics

Chinese linguists are mostly influenced by Saussure’s views on linguistics and semiotics and always take it as one of their major research objects, which mainly includes the following themes: (1) Saussure’s view on linguistics and its fundamental principles: The Famous Swiss Linguist Saussure and His Course in General Linguistics (Cen Qixiang, 1980), Saussure’s Linguistic Theories (Xu Zhimin, 1980), Saussure’s Philosophy of Language (Liu Yaowu, 1981) and Fundamental Principles of Saussure’s Linguistics (Pi Hongming, 1994). (2) The binary opposition of Saussure’s linguistic theory: Saussure’s Langue and Parole Theory (Yang Xinzhang, 1996), On Language’s Synchrony and Diachrony (Xu Siyi, 1980), Research on Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Relations (Xu Shenghuan, 1983), Research on Linear Characteristics of Linguistic Signs (Yang Zhong, Yang Shaojie, 1992), Arbitrariness of Linguistic Signs—One of the Explorations on Linguistic Philosophy (Xu Guozhang, 1988), On the Errors and Reversals of Saussure’s Arbitrariness of Linguistic Signs (Li Baojia, 1994), etc. With further research, more and more scholars find that Saussure’s views are not comprehensive. Some scholars find that his theory cannot explain some linguistic phenomena such as homonymy and polysemy. They hold that the signifier and the physical entity of a sign are separated, while the signifier and the signified can also be separated (Zhang 1999: 16). Another challenge that Saussure’s theory faces is the argument on the arbitrariness of signs, and many scholars hold different views on the iconicity of signs. Related literature includes Iconicity of Language (Du Wenli, 1996), On the Iconicity of Linguistic Signs (Wang Yin, 1999), On the Distance iconicity of Linguistic Signs (Wen Xu, 1999) and Philosophical Basis of and Dialectical Relation between Iconicity and Arbitrariness (Wang Yin, 2002). (3) Comparative studies of Saussure’s and other scholars’ theories: Saussure’s Influence on Chomsky (Liu Yaowu, 1984), E. Benveniste’s Contribution to Developing Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics (Zhou Yining, 1985), Bloomfield and Saussure (Xu Guozhang, 1989), From Saussure to Bloomfield (Shi Cunzhi, 1993), Saussure’s Linguistic Theories and Chen Wangdao’s Functional Theories (Lu Fengpeng, 1996), etc. (4) New discovery and re-understanding of Saussure’s studies: Based on new versions of his works and in-depth research, Chinese scholars put forward many new explanations for Saussure’s linguistics and semiotics, such as On Saussure’s Two Books (Xu Guozhang, 1983), Review on the Course in General Linguistics (Russian Version) (Xin Delin, 1993), New Discovery of Saussure’s Studies (Qi Yucun, 1995), More on Saussure’s Semiotic View of Language: Nature of Linguistic Signs (Le Meiyun, 1997), Pursuing Saussure’s Linguistic

14.2

Major Research Areas and Accomplishments

299

Theories: Reading Saussure’s Third Course of Lectures in General Linguistics (Wang Kefei, 1997), Comparison and Interpretation of Saussure’s Two Textbooks (Zhang Shaojie and Wang Kefei, 1997) and Re-evaluation on Saussure’s Semiotics (Lu Deping, 2002).

14.2.2.2

On Linguistic Signs

(1) Nature and functions of linguistic signs In More on Saussure’s Semiotic View of Language, Le Meiyun (1997) discusses the nature of linguistic signs contained in Saussurean semiotics in detail and summarizes six pairs of contradictions: arbitrariness and constraint, sociality and psychology, variability and invariability, relevance and difference, form and substance, syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. Other papers discussing the nature of linguistic signs include Language Generation (Xu Shenghuan, 1984), Converse Relations of Linguistic Signs (Wang Mingyu, 1997), On the Arbitrariness, Relationship and Sociality of Linguistic Signs (Wang Wenyu, 1997), On the Motivation of Linguistic Signs (Jin Jishi, 1998) and Social Semiotics of Language (Liu Jiarong, 2002). (2) Code-switching In recent years, code-switching has become a research highlight in sociolinguistics, syntactics, psycholinguistics, pragmatics and discourse analysis. Studies from these five perspectives reveal different aspects of code-switching. Representative papers are as follows: A Study on Code-Matching (Long Rijin and Peng Xuanwei, 1993), The Pragmatic Mechanism of Code Selection (Liu Chengyu, 1999), A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Code-Switching (Tan Dongling, 2000), A Review of Researches on Code-switching (He Ziran, 2001), Scotton’s Markedness Model and New Development in Code-switching Studies (Li Jingwei, 2002), etc. (3) Reference All linguistic signs, even the “meaningless” language expressions, have meanings, which are a general property of signs. Opinions, however, vary on “whether all linguistic signs have references” and “the relations between meaning and reference.”. Guo Yukai and Liu Jiarong make further studies on references of words in Referential Relations of Words (1995) and Issues Related to Reference (1999), respectively. (4) The theory of markedness The contrast between markedness and unmarkedness exists in any linguistic sign system, which plays a role in all aspects of linguistic analysis. The theory of markedness has become a new research hotspot in recent years, and related papers include “Markedness” and “Unmarkedness” of Language (Xu Shenghuan, 1985),

300

14

Two Decades of Semiotic Studies in China

On Markedness Theory (Wang Lifei, 1991), On The Markedness Theory of the Prague School (Zhang Jiaye, 1992), Markedness Pattern in Typology (Shen Jiaxuan, 1997), On the Markedness of Linguistic Units (Li Shengchun, 1997), A Re-evaluation of the Markedness Theory (Zhang Feng, 1999), Explanations on Cultural Signs from the Perspective of the Markedness Theory (Li Tianxian and Wang Shunyu, 1999), Marked Theme and Its Pragmatic Function (Wang Yang, 2000) and Markedness in Language: Interpretation and Development (Wang Lifei, 2002).

14.2.3 Researches on Applications of Semiotics Semiotics, as a new methodology and research perspective, plays an instructive role in the research of other disciplines and has a broad application prospect, which is reflected most clearly in the study of linguistics.

14.2.3.1

Applications of Semiotics in Sub-disciplines of Linguistics

(1) Semiotics in semantic studies The in-depth researches on semiotics and the continuous improvements in semiotic theories have promoted the development of semantics. Semiotic ideas have been largely applied to the studies of semantics. For instance, Xu Haiming and Wang Wenqin (1998) explore the influence of Saussurean semiotics on semantics in Saussure’s Linguistic Semiotics and Its Influence on Semantic Theory; Wang Dechun (1987) studies semantics from the perspective of paradigm and syntagm in Paradigme and Syntagme of Meaning; Guo Yukai (1996) explains lexical meaning from the angle of semiosis in Semiosis and Meanings of Words; Wang Mingyu (2002), in The Meaning of Linguistic Signs, and Liu Zuoyan (1999), in An Analysis of National Cultural Semanteme and Bipolar Semiotic System, study the semanteme and national cultural semanteme from the perspective of semiotic hierarchy. (2) Semiotics in pragmatic studies Currently, studies of pragmatics and semiotics are more closely combined with the latter being increasingly applied to the former. Representative papers are as follows: Limitations of Linguistic Signs and Pragmatics (Qian Guanlian, 1991), Applications of Semiotics and “Color Words” in Cross-cultural Communication (Tang Zhenhua, 1996), Pragmatic Functions of Linguistic Signs (Xu Jining, 1999), etc. (3) Semiotics and translation Scholars and translation theorists both in China and abroad have applied semiotics to the area of translation. Representative papers in China are as follows: On the Translation Perspective of Semiotics (Luo Jinde, 1988), On Translation Equivalence: A Social Semiotic Approach (Li Guangrong, 1993), Semiotic

14.2

Major Research Areas and Accomplishments

301

Translation Perspective and Cultural Translatology (Sui Ran, 1994), Studies on Translation from the Semiotic Perspective (Wen Hongrui, 1997), Historical Origins of Social Semiotics and Its Translation Principles (Li Ming, 1997), Researches on Translation from the Semiotic Perspective (Zhang Xinmu, 1998), Semiotic Studies on China’s Traditional Translation Standards (Wang Zhijiang, 2002), etc. (4) Semiotics in specific linguistic phenomena With the improvement in theoretical research on semiotics made by Chinese scholars, studies of specific linguistic phenomena and linguistic performance in the light of semiotics have become a hot spot in recent years. Related papers include Application of Semiotics in the Analysis of Symbolic Words (Wang Mingyu, 1989), Semiotic Meanings of Discourse Sequence (Chen Zhonghua, 1994), Research on Metonymy from the Semiotic Perspective (Hua Shao, 1996), Analysis of Ambiguous Sentences from the Semiotic Perspective (Chen Xiaoyan, 1998), Analysis of Euphemism from the Semiotic Perspective (Gu Tongqing, 1999) and Generation of Metaphor from the Semiotic Perspective (Zhou Honghong, 2000).

14.2.3.2

Applications of Semiotics in Other Fields

(1) Advertisement design and creativity Chinese scholars have discussed the semiotic methods and types applied in advertisement design and creativity in recent years. Related papers include On Application of Semiotic Methods in Creative Design of Advertisement Language (Gou Zhixiao, 1994), Semiotics and Advertisement Language (Wang Shaolin, 1994), Creative Features of Advertisement from the Semiotic Perspective (Huang Li, 1997) and Foregrounding of Signs in Advertisement Language (Hu Man and Lv Yue, 2002). (2) Semiotics in non-linguistic communication Non-linguistic signs play an important role in communication, thus attracting attentions from many scholars. Related papers include Body Language and Its Symbolic Functions (Zhuang Hecheng, 1995), On Non-linguistic Communication (Wang Shuilian, 1996), Non-linguistic Communication: Status and Explanation of Non-linguistic Signs (Gu Jiazu, 1999) and Communicative Functions and Cultural Differences of Body Language (Chen Liangxuan, 1999)

14.2.4 Researches on Cultural and Literary Semiotics 14.2.4.1

Cultural Semiotics

The research on cultural semiotics includes two parts: one is discussing cultural semiotic theory in foreign countries, such as Toward Bakhtin’s Semiotic Kingdom

302

14

Two Decades of Semiotic Studies in China

(Hu Zhuanglin, 2001), Construction of the Semiotic Kingdom: Linguistic Transcendence and Transcendental Language—A Study on Semiotics of Bakhtin and Lotman (Zhang Jie, 2002), Analysis of Cultural Semiotics and Cultural Structures (Gu Jiazu, 2002) and Lotman and His Cultural Semiotic Theory (Zhao Ronghui, 2006); another is applying semiotics to explain Chinese historical and cultural phenomena, such as Semiotic Features and Interpretation of Traditional Cultural Works (Deng Qingsheng, 1993), Semiotic Approaches to the Traditional Chinese Culture (Li Youzheng, 1995), Fuxi and Chinese Culture: Semiotic Research on the Origin of Chinese Culture (Liu Yaohan, 1995), etc. Besides, some scholars also regard art forms as semiotic systems to discuss the functions and analyze the artistic signs, and related papers include Semiotic Features of Chinese Operas (Ding Hegen, 1990), On Semiotic Functions of Art and Culture (Li Xijian, 1992), Semiotic Interpretation of Art Reception (Dong Qiang, 1995), Scientific Signs and Artistic Signs: A Thought on Semiotics (Jian Heyan, 1990), More On Ttransformation Rules of Artistic Signs (Qi Xiaobin, 2000), etc.

14.2.4.2

Literary Semiotics

Semiotic studies in the literary field also cover two aspects: one is the research on the theory of literary semiotics, and the other is the application of semiotic theories to the analysis and interpretation of literary works. The research on the theory of literary semiotics includes the following areas: ① Introduction and review on this theory in both Europe and America; ② relations between semiotics and stylistics; ③ semiotic characteristics and symbolic functions of literary language. Relevant papers include An Overview of Narrative Semiotics in France (Huang Xiaomin, 1995), Semiotic Studies toward Literature (Wang Ning, 1995), The Signifier and the Signified: Semiotic Characteristics of Poetic Language (Ren Yuhai, 1997) and An Approach to Communicative Value of Images: Signs in Poetry (Wang Shaolin, 2002). Meanwhile, in the semiotic studies of the literary field, it is common in recent years to apply semiotic theories to analyze and interpret literary works. Chinese scholars have produced many papers such as On Language and Style of Zhou Zuoren’s Proses and Essays: A Semiotic Approach (Zhang Guangmang, 1993), Aesthetic and Semiotic Approaches to Fairy Tales and Myths (Li Xiuyun, 1999), Interpreting the Poetic Form of Langston Hughes’ Works from the Perspective of Social Semiotics (Luo Lianggong, 1999), Signs Related to the Study on “A Dream of Red Mansions” (Xia He, 2002), etc. In the above sections, we have reviewed the current status and accomplishments of the semiotic studies in China from four research areas, and the representative works listed in this chapter are selected out of nearly 500 papers. From the 1980s to the early twenty-first century, Chinese scholars made great progress in their monographs of semiotics in terms of both quantity and quality, which in turn shows China’s rapid development of semiotic studies. Some representative monographs are listed as follows: Signs: Language and Art (1985) by Yu Jianzhang and Ye

14.2

Major Research Areas and Accomplishments

303

Shuxian, Signs of Artistic Phenomena—Interpretation of Culturology (1987) by He Xin, Philosophical Approaches to the Study of Signs (1989) by Xiao Feng, Artistic Signs and Explanation (1989) by Yang Chunshi, Scientific Semiotics (1992) by Wang Desheng, Mysterious Signs in Life (1992) by Wang Hongqi, An Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics (1993) by Li Youzheng, Rhetoric Semiotics (1993) by Yang Xiliang, An Introduction to Mathematical Semiotics (1993) by Liu Yunzhang, Beyond Noumenon (1994) by Ding Ersu, Semiotic Aesthetics of Modern Poetry (1995) by Zhou Xiaofeng, Signs in Your Life: An Introduction to Semiotics (1997) by Lian Fu, The Semiotic World of Advertising (1997) by Wu Wenhu, Signs Related to the Culture of “Records of the Grand Historian” (1998) by Qi Xiaobin, Meaning and Signs (1999) by Xun Zhixiao, The Culture and Signs of News (1999) by Liu Zhi, Expression Principle of Signs (1999) by Meng Hua, The Development of Language and Semiotics in China (1999) by Chen Zhian and Liu Jiarong, Semiosis of Language (2000) by Ding Ershu, Semiotics of Chinese Characters (2001) by Huang Yaping and Meng Hua, A Study on Semiotics (2002) by Wang Mingyu and Li Jingwei, etc.

14.3

An Outlook of Future Research

With a review of the two-decade development of semiotic studies in China, we can come to the following conclusions: (1) Studies on the basic theory of semiotics by Chinese scholars are not in-depth enough and require more intensive and specific analysis; (2) Compared with other disciplines of semiotics, semiotic studies on linguistics are the first to carry out with fruitful achievements, which, in terms of depth and breadth, play a leading role in semiotic studies on other fields. Therefore, it is high time to establish linguistic semiotics; (3) Studies and applications of semiotic theories in other fields have developed rapidly in China, making significant achievements; (4) In recent years, some semiotic studies with Chinese characteristics have brought new inspirations for similar studies around the world, such as exploration of semiotic thoughts in Chinese cultural classics, studies on sign features of Chinese characters, etc. The twentieth century has ended, and the twenty-first century will see a prospective future of semiotics. We predict that the semiotic studies in China will show the following major development trends: (1) Semiotics will penetrate further into other disciplines, that is, it will play an increasingly important role as a methodology and perspective of researches. Thus, it will not only promote more research in other disciplines but also generate a number of new interdisciplines; (2) Semiotic theories have greatly influenced and expedited the development of such disciplines as semantics, pragmatics, communication theories and translation studies. With more intensive and specific researches on disciplines mentioned above, research findings are bound to have a fundamental impact on semiotic theories, perfecting semiotic theories and improving semiotic studies into a totally new level; (3) Semiotic studies in China will gradually integrate into that around the

304

14

Two Decades of Semiotic Studies in China

world and advance to the world level, finally standing in the forefront of semiotic studies in many fields; (4) Semiotic studies in the field of Chinese culture enjoy vast prospects. It is known that China’s splendid culture, profound philosophical thoughts and vivid pictographic characters all bear great potential for semiotic studies. Therefore, semiotic studies of this field are conducted with the most Chinese characteristics and will surely occupy a unique position in the world.

Chapter 15

A Bibliometric Analysis of Chinese Semiotics

The China Language and Semiotics Association, established in May 1994, serves as a platform for the researchers of semiotics in China to exchange ideas, which have made great contributions to the evolution of semiotics research in China. This chapter collects the papers on semiotics in China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), a key national information construction project, the time of which ranges from May 1994 to October 2016, and analyzes their research topics, discipline distribution, core authors and highly cited papers to reflect the status of semiotics research in China. The author adopts the method of subject search and searches the papers themed on “semiotics” whose publication time is from May 1, 1994 to October 1, 2016, while selecting “precise” matching and “all journals” as source categories. A total of 11,745 articles are found, 571 of which are selected as analysis objects.

15.1

Research Topic

Firstly, from a synchronic point of view, 571 papers are found themed on semiotics. We select such ten topics as semiotic theories, linguistic semiotics, literary and cultural semiotics, cognitive semiotics, semiotics and media, social semiotics, translation semiotics, semiotics and education, semiotic interpretation and others (semiotics and art, design, sport, etc.). As can be seen from Table 15.1, the study of literary and cultural semiotics occupies a relatively higher proportion in the semiotics research in China, accounting for 23.64%. Secondly, from a diachronic point of view, the record of publication and the research topic vary in different time periods. These 22 years are divided into three periods: 1994–2000, 2001–2010 and 2011–2016, based on which a comparative I’d like to express my gratitude here to Wei Xiaowei for providing a wealth of corpus for this chapter. © Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_15

305

1994–2000

1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10

Subject

Semiotic theories Linguistic semiotics Literary and cultural semiotics Cognitive semiotics Semiotics and media Social semiotics Translation semiotics Semiotics and education Semiotic interpretation Others Total

10 50 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 100

Percentage (%)

Table 15.1 Subject distribution in different periods 58 27 47 11 35 7 19 0 15 27 229

2001–2010 25.33 11.79 20.52 4.80 15.28 3.06 8.30 0 6.55 11.79 100

Percentage (%) 59 23 81 10 40 15 15 15 36 38 332

2011–2016 17.77 6.93 24.40 3.01 12.05 4.52 4.52 4.52 10.84 11.45 100

Percentage (%)

108 55 135 21 65 22 34 15 51 65 571

Total

18.91 9.63 23.64 3.68 11.38 3.85 5.95 2.63 8.93 11.38 100

Percentage (%)

306 15 A Bibliometric Analysis of Chinese Semiotics

15.1

Research Topic

307

analysis is made. Statistics show that ten papers were published from 1994 to 2000, with the topics on linguistic semiotics accounting for 50%, the largest proportion. From 2001 to 2010, 229 papers were published, among which the topics on semiotic theory accounts for the highest proportion, which is 25.33%. From 2011 to 2016, 332 papers were published with the topics on literary and cultural semiotics accounting for the highest proportion, 24.40% (see Table 15.1). From the above data, a conclusion can be drawn that the record of publication in China on semiotics has been increasing significantly with the progress of time. As for the topics, the scope of semiotics continues to expand with the hot topics of research changing. We can also find that semiotics is a complex discipline that integrates various disciplines involving linguistics, literature, sociology, translation, education and artistic design.

15.2

Discipline Distribution

Semiotics features the integration with other disciplines. An analysis of the discipline distribution of semiotics in China can help not only grasp the differences of Chinese semiotics research, but also know the attention on the semiotics research from other disciplines and research progress of various disciplines in the field of semiotics. According to the first-level discipline classification in the National Standard for Discipline Classification and Codes of the People’s Republic of China, we divided the 571 papers in CNKI into such eight first-level disciplines as linguistics, literature, art, journalism and communication, sociology, education, law and Marxism, and calculated the corresponding paper proportion (see Table 15.2). As can be seen from Table 15.2, the number of papers in the first-level disciplines of linguistics and literature ranks first. A total of 235 papers are themed on linguistics, accounting for 41.16%; 169 papers are themed on literature, accounting Table 15.2 Distribution of first-level disciplines in Chinese semiotics research No.

First-level discipline

Number

1 Linguistics 235 2 Literature 169 3 Art 65 4 Journalism and communication 65 5 Sociology 22 6 Education 15 7 Law 9 8 Marxism 1 Total 571 Note Classification of the first-level disciplines is based on the National Classification and Codes of the People’s Republic of China

Proportion (%) 41.16 29.60 11.38 11.38 3.85 2.63 1.58 0.18 100 Standard for Discipline

308

15 A Bibliometric Analysis of Chinese Semiotics

for 29.60. So it can be concluded that although semiotics subsumes various disciplines, the scope of study on semiotics is still limited and the research achievements on semiotics in other fields are not significant.

15.3

Core Authors

15.3.1 Determination of Core Authors Core authors play an important role in the researches on one discipline. The two indicators that are used to evaluate core authors in bibliometrics are the record of publication and the amount of citations. The record of publication refers to the number of academic papers of an author in one field, which is an important indicator of the contribution of the author to this field and can reflect the research ability of the author. The amount of citations refers to the cited times of an author’s published papers, which can reflect the quality of the author’s academic achievements. Derek Price, in his representative book Little Science, Big Science, stated that “about half of all publications in a given scientific area will be published by a small number of authors equal to the square root of the total number of p all the authors who published in the specific area”. The formula is Mp ¼ 0:749  ðNp maxÞ (Mp refers to the highest number of papers published), which means that the number of papers published by the core author with the lowest number is equal to or greater than 0.749 times the square root of the number of papers published by the author with the highest number. According to the statistics of CNKI, Zhao Yiheng with 52 papers published ranks firstpin terms of the Record of Publication. According to Price’s law, Mp ¼ 0:749  52 ¼ 0:749  7:211  5:3, then authors with more than five papers published can be identified as core author candidates. However, 48 authors (including independent authors) published more than five articles, accounting for only 0.99% of total number of the authors. Then, the minimum times cited p can be calculated according to Price’s law with the formula Mc ¼ 0:749  ðNc maxÞ (Nc max refers to the highest times cited). The papers of Hu Zhuanglin have the highest cited p times, with a total of 1941. According to the calculation formula Mc ¼ 0:749  1941  44, the authors with cited times of over 44 can be identified as core author candidates. In this paper, the comprehensive index method is adopted, and the formula is as follows: comprehensive index = index of the record of publication *0.5 + index of the amount of citations *0.5, among which index of the record of publication = the the record of publication by core author candidates/the average record of publication by core author candidates, and index of the amount of citations = the amount of citations by core author candidates/the average amount of citations by core author candidates. On the basis of core author candidate Cs, the average record of publication by core author candidates = 240  18  13 (papers), and the average

15.3

Core Authors

309

amount of citations by core author candidates = 4286  18  238 (times). According to Xu Yunfeng’s calculation method, the core author’s comprehensive index should be greater than or equal to 1. Therefore, five core authors were finally determined (see Table 15.3).

15.3.2 Analysis of Core Author Attributes Core author is a factor that determines the development of a discipline and the improvement of scientific achievements. Consolidating the research team and continuously expanding the team of core authors are the important tasks in discipline construction. To have a profound comprehension of the core authors in China’s semiotic studies, we will analyze attributes of the five core authors from gender, age, affiliate and geographical location. Details are as follows: Firstly, from the perspective of gender and age, the five core authors are male and over 40 years old, while three of them are over 70. This suggests that the male scholars made greater achievements than the female in semiotics, and their achievements are related to their age and academic background. In terms of affiliate and geographical location, three core authors are from Beijing and Tianjin, while the other two are from Sichuan Province and Jiangsu Province, respectively. Academic achievements cannot be separated from team cooperation, which shows that Beijing and Tianjin attach more importance to the development of semiotics. Of course, the emergence of core authors is not entirely determined by one factor, but is determined jointly by age, academic thoughts and qualifications, as well as research teams and their persistence to research.

15.3.3 Analysis of the H-Index of Core Authors We find that although the total amount of citations of one author’s publications can measure his/her influence, some issues cannot be neglected for this method. Certain articles that may be cited excessively will unilaterally expand the total amount of citations of one author. Besides the record of publication of one author and the frequency of citation of his/her papers, this paper uses the h-index for analysis: The higher the h-index, the greater the influence the scholars exert in their scientific fields. After the calculation of the h-index of the five core authors, we know that the highest h-index is 10 and the lowest is 8. A comparison between the comprehensive index and the h-index indicates that in the field of semiotics in China, the authors whose h-index is equal to or over 8 can be identified as core authors (see Table 15.3).

Zhao Hengyi Wang Mingyu

1 2

Affiliate

Sichuan University Tianjin Foreign Studies University 3 Zhang Lianglin Changshu Institute of Technology 4 Hu Zhuanglin Beijing University 5 Guo Hong The PLA Institute of International Relations at Nanjing Note Ranked by h-Index of the core authors

Author

No.

Male Male Male Male Male

46 83 75

Gender

71 58

Age

Table 15.3 Statistics of core authors in statistical period

18 17

22

52 22

Record of publication

1941 302

103

332 431

Amount of citations

1.38 1.31

1.69

4 1.69

Total frequency of citation

8.16 1.27

0.43

1.39 1.81

Index of record of publication

4.77 1.29

1.06

2.7 1.25

Comprehensive index

8 8

9

10 10

h-index

310 15 A Bibliometric Analysis of Chinese Semiotics

15.4

15.4

Frequency of Citation of Core Authors

311

Frequency of Citation of Core Authors

15.4.1 Total Frequency of Citation of Core Authors The frequency of citation of one article can reflect the influence of the article, and the statistical analysis of the frequency of citation of the core authors’ papers helps recognize the level of the core authors’ articles in the field of semiotics in China. Statistics show that the core authors’ articles are cited 3109 times. Among the five core authors, the papers of Hu Zhuanglin are the most cited, up to 1, 941.

15.4.2 Determination of Highly Cited Titles and Analysis of Their Frequency of Citation In order to have a clear understanding of high-quality articles, it is necessary for us to search the highly cited papers. Therefore, we need to know the h-index of the papers collected in CNKI. The h-index means that at most h articles in publication are cited at least h times, while for CNKI it means that at most h articles in CNKI are cited at least h times. The calculation method of the h-index is to sort published papers from high to low according to the times cited, and to search the sorted list from front to back until the serial number of the paper is greater than the times cited of the paper. The obtained serial number minus 1 is the h-index. According to the analysis on the amount of citations of the papers in CNKI published during the designated period, it can be found that the h-index of CNKI is 59. Therefore, papers with times cited of over 59 are defined as highly cited papers. Statistics show that 59 papers are cited 59 times or more than 59 times, and these 59 papers can be identified as highly cited papers (see Table 15.4 for highly cited papers and their times cited). By observing Table 15.4, we can find that three core authors are authors of the highly cited papers, namely Hu Zhuanglin, Wang Mingyu and Guo Hong, who can be identified as core authors of the highly cited papers. Now, we will analyze these highly cited articles from the perspectives of topic, journal and time distribution. First of all, from the perspective of topic distribution, highly cited articles involve all aspects of semiotics. According to the classification of semiotics, it mainly includes semiotic theories study, linguistic semiotics study, interdisciplinary semiotics study and the application of semiotics. By sorting out the highly cited articles, it can be found that the above 59 articles are involved in fields of linguistic semiotics, semiotic theories, social semiotics, legal semiotics, translation semiotics, cultural semiotics, tourism semiotics, media semiotics, music semiotics, cognitive semiotics and architectural semiotics, which shows that semiotics covers a wide range of fields and that high-quality papers exist in all different fields. Among them, the number of papers on the topic of linguistic semiotics ranks the first, with 16

312

15 A Bibliometric Analysis of Chinese Semiotics

Table 15.4 Highly cited papers No.

Title

Author

Journal

Year

Times cited

1

Multimodalization in Social Semiotics

Hu Zhuanglin

2007

1141

2

Appraisal Theory: Applications and Problems in Discourse Analysis How is Meaning Construed Multimodally—A Case Study of a PowerPoint Presentation Contest From Justice in the “Square” to the Justice in the “Theater”—A Perspective of Semiotics An Introduction to Linguistic Iconicity A Social Semiotic Analysis of Hypertext’s Multimodality

Li Zhanzi

Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies Foreign Languages Research

2004

1045

Hu Zhuanglin, Dong Jia

Computer-Assisted Foreign Language Education

2006

381

Shu Guoying

Tribune of Political Science and Law

1999

319

Yan Zhensong

Linguistics Abroad

1997

203

Ye Qichang

2006

192

Semantic Priority or Pragmatic Priority—on Construction of Chinese Grammatical System Review on a New Book with Exploring Spirit in Translation Studies: Translation as Adaptation and Selection Reflections on Visual Culture

Liu Danqing

Foreign Language Teaching and Research Linguistic Researches

1995

150

Liu Yunhong, Xu Jun

Chinese Translators Journal

2004

129

Zhou Xian

2001

129

Study on the Application of Regional Cultural in Landscape Architecture Evidentiality in Language

Guo Xiyan

Jiangsu Social Sciences Fujian Normal University

2008

125

1994

118

Linguistic Signs and Their Foregrounding Multimodal Semiotics: Theoretical Basis, Research Approaches and Development Prospects “Semiotization” of Tourism and Semiotized Tourism: Examining Tourism and Tourism Development in the View of Semiotics

Zhang Delu

Foreign Language Teaching and Research Journal of Foreign Languages Foreign Languages Research

1994

116

2012

114

2006

114

3

4

5 6

7

8

9 10

11

12 13

14

Hu Zhuanglin

Li Zhanzi, Lu Danyun

Yang Zhenzhi, Zou Jiyi

Tourism Tribune

(continued)

15.4

Frequency of Citation of Core Authors

313

Table 15.4 (continued) No.

Title

Author

Journal

Year

Times cited

15

Semiotics and Translation of Trademark

Li Shuqin, Ma Huijuan

2000

114

16

The Translation Principle and Strategy of Brand Names A Social Semiotic Approach to the Multimodal Discourse of an Advertisement of Perfume Multimodal Construal of Appraisal: A Case Study of Olympics Television Public Advertising A Semiotic Interpretation of Consumerism Culture The Theory, Content and Methods of Discourse Analysis about Mass Communication Media The Study of Semiotics in the Last Two Decades in China Research on User-Interface Design Semiotic Properties of Ritual Music An Overview of Studies of Modality

Zhu Yajun

Shanghai Journal of Translators for Science and Technology Foreign Languages Research Journal of East China Jiaotong University Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing The Journal of Humanities Journalism & Communication

2003

110

2007

108

2008

102

2004

102

2004

101

2004

98

2006

97

2003

94

2002

93

Industrial Design and Product Semantics Multimodal Discursive Construction of the Concept of Harmony Image Narration and Words Narration—Images and Texts in Story Paintings A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Emmett Williams’ Poem She loves me not Consumer Society from the Perspective of Critical Theory —An Interpretation of The Consumer Society of Baudrillard Semiology and “Color Words” in Transcultural Communication

Wei Changzeng Zheng Haicui, Zhang Maizeng Long Diyong

Journal of Foreign Languages Zhejiang University Musicology in China Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages Packaging Engineering Foreign Language Research

2003

89

2008

88

Jiangxi Social Sciences

2008

87

Hu Dan

Foreign Languages and Their Teaching

2007

85

Yang Haifeng

Changbai Journal

2004

85

Tang Zhenhua

Journal of Shenzhen University

1996

85

17

18

19 20

21 22 23 24

25 26

27

28

29

30

Hu Dan

Chen Yumin

Xiao Xianjing Ding Hegen

Wang Mingyu, Song Yao Jiang Wei Xue Yibing Liang Xiaobo

(continued)

314

15 A Bibliometric Analysis of Chinese Semiotics

Table 15.4 (continued) No.

Title

Author

Journal

Year

Times cited

31

Multimodal Discourse Analysis from the Perspective of Social Semiotics: A Case Study of Shanghai World Expo Logo Key Points on Saussure’s and Peirce’s Semiotic Theories, Questions on Arbitration of Linguistic Signs and Challenges to Saussure’s Theories Contemporary Narratology and Film Narrative Theory

Tian Lu, Liu Zequan

Journal of Yanshan University

2008

83

Guo Hong

Foreign Languages Research

2004

83

Li Xianjie

1999

83

Does Saussure’s Argument of Arbitrariness of Linguistic Signs hold Water?—A Discussion with Prof. Wang Yin The Development of Stylistics Research in China

Guo Hong

Journal of Central China Normal University Foreign Languages Research

2001

80

2000

80

Functional Equivalence in English Translation of Chinese Idioms: A Socio-semiotic Approach Linguistic Semiotics from the Semiotic Perspective

Heng Xiaojun

Basic Foreign Language Education Chinese Translators Journal

2003

77

2004

76

The Application of Semiotic Method in Mass Communication Content of Design Theory for Product Semiology Research on Interface Design of Mobile Internet Application of Smart Phone A New Evaluation on Peirce’s Semiotic Theory Semiotics and Literary Translation Studies Exploration on Cognition of Product Design Based on Semiology and Aesthetics Pragmatics, Stylistics and Literary Studies

Chen Yang

Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication Art & Design

2000

76

2002

75

Yang Huan

Wuhan University of Technology

2013

73

Lu Dengping

The Northern Forum Foreign Literature Studies Zhejiang University

2002

72

2003

71

2004

71

1997

70

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39 40

41 42 43

44

Hu Zhuanglin, Liu Shisheng

Wang Mingyu

Li Leshan

Chen Hongwei Wang Kai

Feng Zongxin

Foreign Literature

(continued)

15.4

Frequency of Citation of Core Authors

315

Table 15.4 (continued) No.

Title

Author

Journal

Year

Times cited

45

A Review of Western Consumer Culture Theories (I) The Study on the Theory of Lansign in Landscape Design Comments on Baudrillard’s Theory of Code Consumption Media Sports: Pseudo Image of Modern Social Sports Some Issues in Contemporary Researches on Semiotics The Exploration of Meaning— A Review of Christian Norberg Schulz’s Architectural Theory Saussure’s Semiotic Linguistic View Visual Grammar: Social Semiotic Perspectives on the Modality of Fairy Tale Illustrations Semiotic Analysis of Basic Categories of Trademark Law Anglo-American Cultural Studies and the New Cultural Geography A Study of Emotional Adverbs in Modern Chinese Spatial Metaphor and the Construction of Multimodal Meaning: The Case of Car Advertisement Sign Structure and Cognition of Urban Space Characteristics —Based on a Survey in Nanjing A Linguistic Interpretation of Peirce’s Theory of Signs

Luo Gang

Foreign Theoretical Trends Wuhan University of Technology Journal of Qinghai Normal University China Sport Science Foreign Languages in Fujian World Architecture

2003

69

2007

66

2007

65

2006

63

1999

63

1997

63

Journal of Foreign Languages Journal of Sun Yat-sen University

1994

63

2007

62

Chinese Journal of Law Acta Geographica Sinica

2007

62

2004

62

2003

107

Feng Dezheng, Xing Chunyan

Tianjin Normal University Journal of Foreign Languages

2011

61

Duan Jin

Planners

2002

60

Wang Mingyu

Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages Foreign Languages Research

1998

60

1999

58

46 47 48 49 50

51 52

53 54

55 56

57

58

59

Semiotics and Linguistics

Chen Shenghao Huang Bo Guo Qing, Hao Qin Hu Zhuanglin Wang Qun

Le Meiyun Ting Jianxin

Peng Xuelong Zhou Shangyi

Guo Xinyu

Wang Mingyu

316

15 A Bibliometric Analysis of Chinese Semiotics

Table 15.5 Topics of the highly cited papers in statistical period on CNKI

Topic

Number

Percentage (%)

Semiotic theories Linguistic semiotics Social semiotics Cognitive semiotics Translation semiotics Media semiotics Legal semiotics Cultural semiotics Tourism semiotics Music semiotics Consumption semiotics Architectural semiotics Semiotic interpretation Total

3 16 8 2 4 9 2 7 1 1 1 2 2 59

5 27 14 3 7 15 3 12 2 2 3 3 3 100

papers, accounting for 27% of the total. This shows that most achievements made by Chinese semiotic scholars are on linguistic semiotics (see Table 15.5). Secondly, from the perspective of journal distribution, 37 highly cited papers are published in core journals, 6 in common journals, 12 in university journals, while 4 are masters’ and doctoral theses. Figure 15.1 shows that the frequency of citation is positively correlated to the quality of journals (see Fig. 15.1). Finally, according to the time distribution, 13 highly cited papers were published from 1994 to 1999, 43 from 2000 to 2009, 3 from 2010 to 2013, and 0 from 2013 to date. As can be seen from Fig. 15.2, highly cited papers were mainly published from 2000 to 2009. Since 2010, the number of highly cited papers on semiotics in China started to decrease significantly (see Fig. 15.2).

40 30 20 10 0

Number of Papers

Core journals

Common journals

University Masters journals and doctoral these

Fig. 15.1 Number of highly cited papers in statistical period on CNKI

15.5

Analysis and Discussion of Research Results

50 38 25 13 0

317

Number of Papers

1994~1999 2000~2009 2010~2013

2013~

Fig. 15.2 Number of highly cited papers on semiotics in China in statistical period on CNKI

15.5

Analysis and Discussion of Research Results

After analyzing the above data, we can find that: (1) Chinese semiotic studies cover a wide range of area and semiotics is interdisciplinary; (2) The number of papers on semiotics published in China has increased significantly with the progress of time, and semiotics is being known and studied by more and more researchers; (3) From the perspective of determining the core authors, the identities of core authors are related to academic qualifications, quality of papers, gender, region and research team, which are the result of interaction of several factors; (4) Through the analysis of comprehensive index and h-index, it can be found that one author can be designated as a core author if the author’s h-index reaches 8 in the field of semiotics in China; (5) In terms of the frequency of citation, the main achievements of Chinese semiotic studies are mainly manifested in the field of linguistic semiotics, and the quality of papers is positively correlated to the quality of journals. (6) From the relationship between core author and frequency of citation, core authors are generally positively related to the frequency of citation. There are mainly three reasons why only three are designated as highly cited core authors: Firstly, some authors have more publications, and a big total amount of citation and some of their papers are highly cited. These authors are influential in the field of semiotics in China and thus belong to the highly cited core authors; secondly, although some authors have a strong record of publication and a big total amount of citation, they lack highly cited papers. Such authors are still core authors with great influence, and the quality of their articles is relatively stable. Some of them contribute themselves to researches in a certain field, which will naturally affect the frequency of citation of their papers; thirdly, although some authors are not core authors, their papers are still highly cited papers. High as the quality of their papers is, the record of publication by such

318

15 A Bibliometric Analysis of Chinese Semiotics

authors is relatively weak and they lack influence in semiotics of China. The above reasons explain why the highly cited papers are not completely positively correlated with the core authors; but in general, the sum of times cited of the core authors is 3109. Hence, the core authors and the frequency of citation are positively related. Though Chinese semiotics studies have witnessed some achievements, some problems cannot be neglected. Firstly, though the number of researchers on semiotics in China is large, the mobility of researchers is larger and their study involves more than just semiotics. During the statistical period, 4825 authors published papers on semiotic, but 4321 of them only published one paper, accounting for 89.55% of all authors. This shows that most semiotics researchers do not carry out deep investigations into semiotics, or even give up the study in the middle. Secondly, the research topics on semiotics are not balanced. During the CNKI statistical period, literary semiotics and cultural semiotics account for the highest proportion in China, but the quality of the papers on these topics is not high. Influential high-quality papers mainly focus on linguistic semiotics. This requires a deeper investigation into all aspects of semiotics. This means that Chinese semiotics studies should not only be limited to the fields of linguistic semiotics, social semiotics and media semiotics, but it should expand its research scope and make achievements in other fields. Thirdly, as for the research disciplines, semiotics only draws attention of the disciplines of linguistics and literature, the research depth of which needs to be further strengthened. Lastly, the number of core authors of semiotics in China is relatively small, the proportion of which is only 5–4825. Therefore, it requires more people to be able to engage themselves in semiotic research and persist in this field to make their achievements. Chinese semiotic thoughts enjoy a long history with abundant resources. If Chinese scholars have a clear understanding of the existing problems in semiotics research in China based on the history of Chinese semiotic studies, pay attention to the breadth and depth of the research, innovate in theories, research angles and relevant disciplines, and attract more scholars to join in, more papers will be cited and Chinese semiotics studies will develop better over time.

Chapter 16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

It is generally believed that Chinese modern semiotics started only in the 1980s, and it is just over 30 years old so far. At first, “the focus of Chinese researchers was mainly on the thoughts of such well-known semiotics scholars as Saussure, Peirce, Morris, Barthes and Bakhtin” (Wang 2004: 484). With the deepening of their research, Chinese scholars’ innovative achievements have become increasingly rich, and some ideas have attracted the high attention of their peers at home and abroad. In this chapter, we will mainly investigate the basic trends of development of Chinese modern semiotics in the past 30 years through the introduction and analysis of three representative works of Chinese semiotics, namely, Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics by Li Youzheng, Modern Linguistic Semiotics by Wang Mingyu and Semiotics: Principles and Problems by Zhao Yiheng.

16.1

Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics

We can roughly divide the development of modern semiotics in China into two stages: from the 1980s to the end of the twentieth century and from the twenty-first century to the present. In the first stage, Chinese semiotics mainly followed formalism or structuralism semiotics. Li Youzheng said, “I personally attach special importance to the efforts of French structuralism … for the development of Chinese semiotics and Chinese and Western comparative semiotics, the heritage of the French Structuralism Semiotics Movement is of special significance” (Li 2007: 781). Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics is one of the representative works of the famous Chinese semioticist Li Youzheng. In his description of the theoretical pedigree of world semiotics, Saussure’s linguistic semiotics and structuralism semiotics are introduced in detail and studied deeply. The book, with 760,000

This chapter was originally written by Meng Hua and was revised by the author of this book. © Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_16

319

320

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

words, is a general view of European and American semiotics, integrating history, general theories, schools, special topics and compilations of semiotics. The leading edge of theoretical knowledge, diversity, interdisciplinary and detailed information and in-depth thinking made the book a representative work regarding the development history of modern semiotics in China as soon as it was published in 1993. For most readers, Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics is difficult to read because of its interdisciplinary knowledge and bulky, complicated and abstract contents. However, it aroused great interest in the academic community and has been published in three editions so far.

16.1.1 Part I: General Introduction This part gives a panoramic overview of the nature of semiotics and its position in modern science as a whole, the general situation of modern semiotics research in different countries, a brief history of semiotics thoughts, epistemology and methodology of semiotics, etc. It mainly examines issues of semiotics from the perspective of philosophical epistemology and the history of humanistic thoughts. The author outlines two major directions of contemporary semiotics, namely signification theory and communication theory in the introduction part (In this chapter, these two directions are, respectively, called formal theory and substantive theory.) Among the representatives of the four major schools of Western modern semiotics (Peirce, Saussure, Greimas and Eco) presented by the author, French traditional Saussurian and Greimasian semiotics are oriented toward signification theory, while American traditional Peircian semiotics focuses on the comprehensive and experimental viewpoint of mark and the thought of mark process itself. “The studies on the communication aspect of the mark process or mark behavior overwhelmingly suppress the studies on the signification function of mark” (Li 2007: 33). The traditional Italian semiotics represented by Eco has a tendency of eclecticism between signification and communication (Li 2007: 34). Li points out, “In the two major directions of signification theory and communication theory of semiotics today, this book focuses on the former.” What does signification theory of semiotics mean? The book points out, “The uniform topic of this book is the study of signification theory, that is, the study of the correlation between expression and content in various semantic and nonverbal mark systems” (Li 2007: 5). This is Li’s important division of semiotics: Communication theory of semiotics pays more attention to the dynamic study of the mark process and the side of mark behavior, while the signification theory of semiotics pays more attention to the study of the signification relationship between the expression side and the content side. At the same time, he also shows that although the book takes into account the overall description of European and American semiotics as much as possible, its main academic position is still signification theory (or formalistic and structuralist theory). Accurately speaking, it is a key to understanding Li Youzheng’s semiotic viewpoint to insist on signification

16.1

Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics

321

theory in the contrast between signification theory and communication theory, and on Saussure’s position in the contrast between the two major semiotic traditions of Saussure and Peirce.1

16.1.2 Part II: Linguistic Semiotics Through the introduction of “linguistic semiotics,” Part II helps the readers further to understand the signification theory of semiotics. Li mainly discusses the hierarchical structural units of linguistic signs and the semantic content of signs from three parts: language structure, semantic structure and discourse structure. Structuralism holds that “mark” is a dihedral composed of the signifier and the signified, but the author emphasizes the point of view of Saussure’s successor, Louis Hjelmslev, calling the signifier “expression side” and the signified “content side”. The two can be further divided into two categories: entity and form. The signifier and signified of “mark” are composed of the form of expression side (hierarchical structure unit of language and its connection mode) and the form of content side (not stereotyped objects or ideas, but forms, namely their semantic structures). In his dihedral analysis of signification relation, i.e., marks or signs, Li distinguishes structuralist linguistics from structuralist semiotics, holding that “the object of language science seems to be mainly the study of language forms. However, in the field of semiotics, the issue of meaning must be included. Linguistics can only study the connection of the signifier, while semiotics must study the relationship between the signifier and the signified, which is the issue of meaning of language” (Li 2007: 232). The boundary between linguistics and semiotics that he divides is that linguistics focuses on the structural relationship of signs (the connection between the signifier and the structural elements of signs), while semiotics focuses on the signification relation, that is, the meaning of signs. From structure to signification relation, this should be the author’s most concise summary of the difference between structural linguistics and structural semiotics. Of course, when he does not carry out this distinction thoroughly, it is easy for readers to confuse structural linguistics with semiotics. Part II also takes into account other semiotic viewpoints that describe the world semiotic pedigree with the standpoint and method of structuralist semiotics. For example, for the “structure of the issue of meaning” discussed in the second chapter of this part, the author’s vision is not limited to the introduction of linguistic semantics, but stands in the background of a deeper and broader philosophical thought history, introducing various important schools of meaning to readers, such as logical semantics represented by Frege and Russell, epistemological semantics 1

Li Youzheng believes that Peirce belongs to the semiotic tradition of communication theory: “Peirce’s general mark concept and logical direction effectively exclude any mark concept of linguistics. As a result, the studies on the communication aspect of the mark process or mark behavior overwhelmingly suppress the studies on the signification function of mark” (Li 2007: 33).

322

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

represented by Husserl and linguistic semantics represented by Saussure (Li 2007: 235). Through comparison, we will find that these three semantic theories have great differences in understanding the content of signs. Logical semantics pays more attention to the issue of reference and demonstration. Its semantics is related to the object of reference, that is, the thing that is present or actually exists. Phenomenological semantics pays more attention to semantic intentionality and conceptual expression, which is related to meaning expression. Saussure’s semantics pays more attention to the division of the content side by the distribution relation of the language structure. This semantic object is related to language’s formal structure. The above-mentioned different semantic objects just constitute the content side, which is referred to by abundant signs. The three aspects of semantic level analysis explained by the author provide us with basic clues to understand European and American semiotics: without the signified, there is no way to discuss the signification relation of signs, and without discussing the signification relation, there is no real semiotics, because signs always form a certain meaning and signification theory around a certain signified. Determining the nature of the signified, therefore, should be one of the basic issues in European and American semiotics studies. When discussing the content or signified of signs, Li mentions the important semiotic concept of “signified domain”: “Saussure’s concept of ‘signified’ does not deny the existence of world things, but does not regard things other than language as related items of language expression. This related item is the signified domain (Saussure) corresponding to things psychologically and the content side corresponding to things logically” (Li 2007: 160). That is to say, although structuralist semiotics emphasizes the content or the non-substantive attribute of the signified, the concept of “signified domain”2 reveals to us that the signified is in essence a hierarchical domain of relevance: from the substantive physical object to the psychological concept, and then to the semantic form of the concept. Li explains the composition of the “signified domain” by using the metaphor of ‘net shadow on the ground’: “A: ground, B: net shadow, C: ground plus net shadow. As the content “The signified of signs is essentially a ‘signified domain,’ that is, a state in which it hovers between the present, the real, the conceptual and the semantic. Only by doing so can the problem of generic signs arise. (1) A word sign, when stuck on an article to become the label of the article, refers to an object at presence. (2) If we take off the label and let people imagine or find the corresponding object in reality according to the label, the absent corresponding object represented by the label is the signified object in reality. (3) If this label concerning a certain object becomes a generic name of a common concept and no longer represents a specific object, then it is a conceptual signified object. (4) If we stick the word ‘apple’ on banana, this mistake cannot change the nature of banana, because the nature of this label is ultimately determined by the object. But in some cases, it is just the opposite—the nature of an object is determined by its label. For example, a toilet, when labeled with the sign ‘male,’ is a male toilet, and when labeled with ‘female,’ becomes a female toilet. The same is true of some highly homogeneous commodities. The difference between them can only be made through labels (trademarks or advertisements)—the nature of the signified object is not determined by the object itself but by the making of the sign system. The toilet or commodity determined and distinguished by the sign system is the semantic object” (Meng 2014: 81).

2

16.1

Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics

323

side, it can be said that A is the material, B is the form and C is the essence. C is the substance of the language, that is, the mark meaning of words, while B is the form segmented by C, which forms the basic part of the semantic plane” (Li 2007: 161). In other words, A is reality or presence, C is object of concept, and B is semantic object of content and form. This is an important distinction between what signs refer to: A is object, C is meaning and B is semantic meaning. In other words, structuralist semiotics put forward the important concept of “signified domain” on the one hand, but on the other hand, it took the semantic meaning, namely, signified object B, as the main research object of the content side of signs, and A and C are only the related domains of B and are excluded from the signified concept. However, the “signified domain” of structuralism would inspire people to discover a law of signification: the nature of the object (A or B or C) to which the sign refers determines the nature of the structure of the sign. If the presence A determines that a word is a label sign, it follows the placement grammar of object; concept C determines that a word is a logical sign or term, which follows logical classification and empirical inference rules. Semantic object B determines that words are a formal allocation unit, which follows the structural grammar of linear language. In this way, there are two semiotic positions: one is the structuralist signification theory that excludes A and C from the three items A, B and C in the signified domain; the other is the signification process theory that associates A, B and C through the signification law. The second one—signification process theory is summarized according to the author’s description and is not the original intention of Li’s so-called signification theory. Strictly speaking, the signification law or the signification process theory does not belong to Peirce’s semiotic tradition of “communication theory” as mentioned by Li, but is a “neutralization” product combining Saussure’s theory of signification with Peirce’s theory of process. Sign is placed in a dynamic communication and pragmatic environment to find its content relevance. On the one hand, it pays attention to the distinction between presence, reality, signification or meaning (Peirce’s tradition), and on the other hand, it examines the influence of this different content relevance or referent on sign structure and system rules: whether it is placement, logical reasoning or linguistic grammar (Saussure’s tradition). It means that the integration of the law with Saussure and Peirce’s two traditions will result in a neutral semiotic view of Saussure/Peirce integration and will turn the concept of opposition between entities and forms of Hjelmslev into a transitional neutral domain of association, in which entity elements will no longer be excluded from signs. We will see in the next section that this kind of mixed or neutral semiotic view becomes one of the important features of Wang Mingyu’s studies in Modern Linguistic Semiotics.

16.1.3 Part III: General Semiotics While Part II of the book focuses on linguistic semiotics dominated by signification in the distinction between signification theory and communication theory, Part III,

324

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

General Semiotics, enters the discussion of the relationship between linguistic signs and non-linguistic signs, which is another basic issue in semiotic research. The core issues in the first chapter “Conception General Semiotics” of this part concerns how to deal with the relationship between linguistic signs and non-linguistic signs. There are mainly two schools: one is the linguistic semiotics school and the pan-semiotics school (Li Youzheng calls it “general semiotics”). Li believes that Saussure, Hjelmslev, Greimas and Barthes are all semiotics scholars of language centrality. The research of the first two scholars is still within the area of linguistics. While the latter two scholars have already extended their research in the field of semiotics to non-linguistic signs, “their research can only be taken as limited application of the theory of linguistic semiotics in the field of non-linguistic signs” (Li 2007: 482). Representatives of the pan-semiotics school mainly include Cassirer, Morris, Peirce, Jacobson, Sebeok, etc. They try to describe and think about the relationship between various linguistic and non-linguistic expression systems such as mark, sign, symbol, communication, cognitive psychology and human culture. Although Li’s academic stand is on the side of linguistic semiotics, his systematic description of the two camps of semiotics makes readers feel that the influence of the pan-semiotic school is increasing. If we say that Part I and Part II deal with the first fundamental issue of semiotics studies—signification theory or communication theory?—then, Part III involves the second fundamental issue— how to deal with the relationship between linguistic signs and non-linguistic signs, that is, linguistic semiotics or pan-semiotics? The second chapter of this part is entitled “non-linguistic and mixed mark system typology.” The author intends to emphasize that pan-semiotics mainly takes non-linguistic or mixed marks and their classification as its research object, and focuses on the mark taxonomy of Eco, Peirce, Morris, Sebeok and Barthes. After the readers have a general understanding of the types of marks and their different classification theories, the book then discusses several important categories of pan-sign classification: symbol, signal and signifier, resemblance mark, mark prototype and pattern, mirror mark, natural mark and psychological mark. The author discusses each category comprehensively and deeply, which has both profound academic connotation and theoretical enlightenment. Taking “symbol” as an example, Li vividly demonstrates a history of symbolic concept from etymology and ancient Chinese “military symbols” to Freud and Lacan’s psychoanalysis of “symbol,” from Cassirer’s “symbolic form philosophy” to Saussure and Peirce’s different understanding of “symbol.” The last section of the second chapter no longer discusses on semiotic taxonomy but turns to focus on Eco’s “non-linguistic and hybrid code theory.” In this section, Li divides the research direction of semiotics into three categories: linguistic, non-linguistic and eclectic. Saussure, Hjelmslev and Barthes are the first category. Peirce, Morris and Sebeok are the second category. Eco falls into the third category. The latter two categories are pan-semiotics or general semiotics, but there are still differences between them. Li grasps another basic question of semiotics: “segmented or not?” It is the way to distinguish the three categories. For the so-called segmentation in semiotics, it means that a sign as a whole can further be divided

16.1

Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics

325

into several structural units. According to Martinet’s theory, language is composed of two segments (phoneme is the formal layer, that is, the second segment unit, and above morpheme is the sign layer, that is, the first segment unit). The first category of semiotics (linguistic semiotics) extends the principle of linguistic structure to the analysis of nonverbal signs and holds that nonverbal signs can also be analyzed in two levels and sections. For example, anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss used phonemic theory to study the kinship structure of primitive tribes. The second category of semiotics focuses more on the integrity of nonverbal signs, that is, the study of non-segmentation. Eco, on the other hand, compromised the views of the former two parties, holding that there are both segmented and unsegmented signs in the nonverbal sign system, and even the segmented signs have differences in the degree of segmentation. He proposed six types of mark segmentation: (1) system without segmentation; (2) system with only the second subsection; (3) code with only the first subsection; (4) code with two subsections; (5) code with segmentation of mobility; (6) three-layer subsection code (Li 2007: 553–555). We think that Eco’s eclectic classification seems more explanatory. For example, relatively speaking, the single pictographic Chinese characters are not segmented. The pictophonetic characters are segmented, which, however, only occurs on the character, that is, the first segment. The alphabetic writing is the writing of the second subsection: the ideographic letter string or word (the first subsection) consists of the formal unit (the phonemic letter of the second subsection) that is not ideographic. In addition, even if the pictographic Chinese characters are segmented to a certain extent (i.e., integrated pictographic characters, see Sect. 3 of this chapter), the segmentation of pictographic characters and the segmentation of pictophonetic characters do not belong to the same concept: The former is only the segmentation of the character’s body structure itself, while the latter also includes the segmentation of the recorded language units (sound and meaning). On the whole, the Chinese character system is only the first subsection sign. This shows that Chinese characters partly have the characteristics of nonverbal signs. In view of the complexity and diversity of the segmentation of nonverbal signs, which determines that they do not have the tight structural organization of natural language systems, Eco called them “non-strictly coded” notation systems. However, Li points out that “the prototype of Eco’s general code segmentation theory is still the language code theory, but the former is not as well organized as the latter” (Li 2007: 555). This assessment is very pertinent. Although Eco is eclectic, he is still linguistics oriented. According to the complexity of segmenting and un-segmenting in common marks, Eco divided the organizational structure rule system of marks into strict and non-strict coding systems. Relatively speaking, Saussure’s linguistic signs are strict coding systems, while most of the three types of marks proposed by Peirce (resemblance, indicative of causality, conventional, etc.) are not segmented, so they are relatively non-strict coding systems. Eco pointed out that a large number of cultural mark systems are actually a mixture of coding programs with different degrees of certainty, from absolute certainty represented by “1” to absolute uncertainty represented by “0”. These two extremes are called coded relation and non-coded relation, respectively.

326

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

We find a law of signifier signification through Li’s summary of Eco’s semiotics: The difference between the degree of segmentation and non-segmentation or segmentation of signified by signs leads to the strict and non-strict classification of coding methods. The law can be expressed as follows: The structural nature of the expression side of a sign unit (motivated or non-motivated, segmented or non-segmented) determines the difference in coding rules of the sign system (Meng 2012: 33). Segmented and unsegmented also correspond to Hjelmslev’s categories of “entity” and “form”: Unsegmented signifiers (such as the expression side of images, marks and physical signs) belong to the expression side with stronger entity; segmented signifier refers to the expression side with strong formality. Therefore, segmentation is the degree of formalization of a sign’s signifier. Therefore, the law of signifier signification involves the so-called neutral concept: The dissolution of the binary opposition between entity and form, thus negating the rejection of entity elements by structuralist semiotics, making the semiotic expression side or signifier a signifier domain and an expression domain that transits between entity and form. However, the eclectic Eco sometimes attributes the factors that determine the difference in coding methods to the signified domain instead of the signifier domain. He argues on the establishment of resemblance coding methods that, “all examples of non-coding relations are related to the prototype on the content side” (Li 2007: 560). This means that the coding principle of an image sign comes from the prototypicality of its signified, that is, the real or present object in the “signified domain,” rather than the semantic object. Therefore, we can see that the differences in encoding methods are restricted by the signifier domain (degree of segmentation or “segmentation domain”) and the signified domain (semantic, meaningful or real object). The distinction between the two constitutes the law of signified signification and signifier signification. However, although Eco observed and discussed these two laws of signification, he did not consciously distinguish them. Eco’s description of the law of sign signification is actually focusing on the dynamic process of sign signification and its mode of production. The process is related to pragmatic communication behavior and is not based on the “integration” of the two semiotic traditions of Saussure and Peirce. Therefore, it is described by Li Youzheng as certain Peirce’s semiotics of communication theory: “Eco’s achievements in general semiotics are mainly manifested in the analysis of the perceptual process or the mode of production of signification mark, thus showing the characteristics of typical pragmatic analysis” (Li 2007: 563). Li Youzheng reveals to us Eco’s theory of code signification relation that emphasizes linguistic signs, communication theory that emphasizes non-linguistic signs’ signification (law of signification), and the theoretical exploration to combine the two—to think about semiotics in the mutual relationship between signification theory and communication theory should be the main trend of modern Chinese semiotics. Li Youzheng highlights Eco’s “eclectic” position between Saussure and Peirce in the third chapter of his book. Among contemporary semioticians, Eco is the most representative and influential scholar in the world. His semiotics took an eclectic position that is consistent with Saussure’s and Peirce’s semiotics, which is not only one of the

16.1

Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics

327

trends of world semiotics, but also the reason why Li Youzheng chooses Eco to introduce the “general semiotics theory.” Li Youzheng points out that Eco “relies heavily on some of Peirce’s main concepts” in general semiotic epistemology (Li 2007: 568), but in the analysis of cultural signs, “he is still influenced by the European semiotic tradition from Saussure to Barthes” and tends to make semantic analysis (Li 2007: 588). Eco relies heavily on Peirce’s concept of “interpretant.” Peirce believed that a sign consists of three elements: representation, object and interpretant. Li Youzheng thinks that Eco regards the interpretant as equivalent to “the denotation and connotation of the whole mark carrier” (Li 2007: 570). On one hand, the interpretant, as a denotation, carries the meaning of a mark or its representation, and the interpretant itself, on the other hand, is composed of various heterogeneous signs. Take the explanation of an entry as an example, the image of a “dog” can be used to explain the word “dog” or a language can be used to explain another language. It can be seen that the interpretant, as a denotation, has dual attributes: it is not only the meaning of the sign itself but also the metalanguage which explains the meaning of the sign. In the sense of meaning, the interpretant is the way of understanding or conceptual form of a semiotic object; in the sense of metalanguage that interprets the meaning, the interpretant is the semiotic operation mechanism of the interpretation process. As for the connotation, “it is a basic interpretant of denotation, and the other connotation is the interpretant of its next connotation” (Li 2007: 570), which means that an interpretant, as a meaning, can be the basis for the extension of another meaning. Therefore, an interpretant is also a variable unit that continuously moves toward infinite signification. Eco’s interpretant of denotation is obviously similar to referential theory: it exists for the interpreting objects (real objects or present objects); his interpretant of connotation, however, is similar to structuralist signification theory, especially Barthes’ secondary signs: denotation becomes the expression side and connotation becomes the content side, and the deduction can be infinite… In this regard, Li criticizes, “In his own concept of signification theory, there is no clear distinction between the two theories of empiricist signification and semiotic signification, so the same word of interpretant with its own ambiguity can be parallel to Eco’s two types of discourse” (Li 2007: 573). This ambiguity indicates Eco’s efforts to bridge or accommodate Peirce and Saussure semiotics and exposes the inherent contradictions and limitations of his eclectic stance.

16.1.4 Part IV: Cultural Semiotics Part IV is not about language or general phenomena of marks but “the type and structure of the history of thought, with emphasis on the analysis of marks, types and structures in the history of thought… It is the study of the structure of ‘expression side’ on a cultural level and the correlation between expression and

328

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

content” (Li 2007: 612). In other words, Li’s cultural semiotics is the signifying study of cultural units. Two representative figures of Russian cultural semiotics, Lotman and Bakhtin, are introduced in the second chapter of this part. Yuri Lotman, founder of the Tartu–Moscow Semiotic School, divided the semiotic world into three parts: (1) primary modeling system based on natural languages; (2) synthetic language system like traffic signals; (3) second “language” or secondary modeling system—the cultural communication structure based on the level of natural language. Literature and art, the expression tools of which are not just natural languages, are seen as signs of the secondary modeling system; painting, music and architecture are all included in the system except for literal texts. The relationship between the verbal and cultural signs of Lotman’s cultural semiotics is analyzed by Li as follows: “The secondary modeling system is built upon natural languages with denotation, and it has an additional structure besides natural language, which makes it more sophisticated” (Li 2007: 638). That is to say, while the primary modeling system that offers the structural organization rules serves as the foundation, the secondary modeling system (cultural signs) is an additional system with structural heterogeneity that is complicated and diversified. Li Youzheng, however, still sees Lotman as a linguistic semiotician. Mikhail Bakhtin, another world-renowned semiotician, transferred the view of semiotics from the normative signs of natural language to the discourse (corresponding to Saussure’s parole) system. Through the analysis of Dostoevsky’s literary texts, Bakhtin presented a set of “dialogue” theory, stressing that discourse is a mutual communication between the self and the other, and otherness is a requirement for the building of self-awareness. The “monologic” discourse, on the contrary, is repressive due to the finalizability of the self or the mind. The “carnival” discourse, which subverted all the normative monologic discourse, was held in esteem by Bakhtin. His dialogue theory associated the sign system with social ideology and regarded language as a “transpersonal social phenomenon” (Li 2007: 661). It has to be noted that though Bakhtin’s discourse theory mainly refers to narrow conversations, the intersubjective communication methods he summed up from conversations have been widely used in such non-discursive fields as written texts (the monologism of Tolstoy’s novels and the polytonality and dialogism of Dostoevsky’s novels) or physical signs; “a tool also may be converted into an ideological sign. Such, for instance, is the hammer and sickle insignia of the Soviet Union. In this case, hammer and sickle possesses a pure ideological meaning” (Bakhtin 1998: 349). The title of the third chapter is “Discourse semiotics of French humanities: a structural analysis of theoretical thoughts,” from which it can be seen that Li Youzheng considers the French cultural semiotics as a group of structuralist semioticians’ signifying analysis toward ideology, epistemology and social culture. The main representatives, including Althusser, Kristeva, Derrida and Foucault, are philosophers, thinkers and semioticians who are totally different from one another and cannot be unified under one school. They are called structuralism for their application of semiotic analysis toward the signifying theory to the secondary

16.1

Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics

329

discourse system within the field of ideology and culture. Therefore, Li indicates that “humanities discourse analysis of semiotics is an examination of the signifying relation between the expression side and the content side, which is a process that belongs in the semantics or semiotics rather than in the traditional hermeneutics” (Li 2007: 678). The “signifying relation” is a key to understanding what Li Youzheng calls “French cultural semiotics.” For instance, for French philosopher Louis Althusser, “ideology” does not refer to thoughts but a mode of mark signification that makes expressions. He believed that “ideology is a ‘representation’ of the imaginary relation of a subject for his/her living condition” (Li 2007: 683). Ideology is considered as a semiotic fact and an imaginary signifying system of signs. Julia Kristeva, French semiotician and literary critic, also applied the signifying practice of marks to cultural analysis, “which refers to studying the signifier means of various mark systems in different cultures” (Li 2007: 689); her theory of cultural text analysis aims ultimately to discover the “meaning” of texts, so that signifying activities and their modes can be the focus of cultural signs studies. Though Jacques Derrida, a deconstructionist, subverted Saussure and Husserl’s semiotic theory of Logocentrism, he still discussed issues in terms of signifying relation. His notion of writing or “difference” stressed that mark is a category game, “which also refers not only to itself but the other elements that haven’t been presented” (Li 2007: 707– 708); this kind of signification analysis was no longer about presence or absence, therefore, culture became a differential neutral category activity and “the difference between signified and signifier was not reliable anymore” (Li 2007: 712). Michel Foucault, a historian of ideas, analyzed the relationship between discourse and power, and his discourse content has gone beyond the conversation in the linguistic sense, which refers to both conversation and signification practices involving a knowledge representation system formed by all sorts of signs (such as conversational, written, visual signs and so forth) and their rules and practices, and this system can be found in the construction of things. Foucault’s concept of discourse does not agree that the subject determines the discourse; he believed that the discourse system produces the subject, which serves as the bearer of the specific position in the system and we are unknowingly dominated by the discourse power. In short, in Part IV, considering the relationship between the primary linguistic signs model and the secondary cultural signs model, Li focuses on various semiotic theories relating to the application of the signifying analysis of linguistic semiotics to the cultural signs system called “the secondary model,” which is of great benefit to the development of semiotics, especially linguistic semiotics.

16.1.5 Summary Throughout Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics, we can summarize the main ideas of the book as to discuss general semiotic theories with a focus on the signification theory by distinguishing it from the communication theory. Li

330

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

Youzheng’s view of structural semiotics is highlighted in the book, and his “relational” ideas bring the readers to the forefront of the most basic problem domains of modern semiotics, which include. The relationship between the signification theory and the communication theory, linguistics and linguistic semiotics, the signification theory and the signification law, Saussure’s semiotic theories and Peirce’s semiotic theories, and the primary linguistic model system and the secondary cultural signs model. These problems are still the basic ones that every Chinese semiotics researcher has to deal with. Eco took a compromised or “eclectic” position on the handling of these binary relationships, whereas Li chooses to look at the differences between those pairs of concepts and insists on Saussure’s signification theory or the tradition of structural semiotics. He takes a firm stand for the traditional theory of Saussure’s semiotics after comparing it to Peirce’s semiotic theories and related concepts, which makes clear his theoretical view of what is called a “separated approach” in the study of modern Chinese semiotics (to distinguish from Wang Mingyu and Zhao Yiheng’s neutral views that will be discussed below).

16.2

Modern Linguistic Semiotics

Modern Linguistic Semiotics authored by Wang Mingyu was published in 2013. It represents 20-year progress of semiotic studies in China after Li’s Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics in 1993 and is the beginning for Chinese semiotic studies to establish its own theoretical framework instead of learning from Western semiotics. In Part I, an Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics, Wang defines sign as “the material carrier of equivalent common information” (Wang 2013: 5), where it contains three keywords: material carrier, equivalent and common information. “Material carrier” is equivalent to “signifier” identified by Saussure. It puts more emphasis on the substance of material, while “signifier” is a non-substantial formal concept. For example, the word “big,” according to Saussure’s theory, is the same signifier (form) whether in written or oral form; but as for the definition of “material carrier” in Modern Linguistic Semiotics, “big” in two situations represents different material expressions that can convey a variety of social information and should belong to two different carriers of signs. Thus, “material carrier” described by Wang is obviously much closer to “representamen” of Charles S. Peirce. “Common information” is comparable to “signified” described by Saussure. “Common” means the social convention of information, which is a fundamental theoretical principle of Saussure’s semiotic theories. It excludes both purely individual, accidental expressive activities and non-social, non-intentional signs, namely natural signs without the subject that send out the signs. “Information” here is a general term that contains the abstract concept of Saussure’s “signified” and the substantive material and referential object, so it in this sense is more like Peirce’s idea than Saussure’s.

16.2

Modern Linguistic Semiotics

331

“Equivalent” means that “form and substance of signs when showing to people are not separated, but combined. “…When we use plum blossom to represent people’s strength and resilience, it must not be interpreted as because there is plum blossom in the world, there are strength and resilience in people’s mind. Instead, strength and resilience and plum blossom shall be combined, and presented to people at the same time” (Wang 2013: 5). “Equivalent” here inherits from Saussure’s synchronic view—signifier and signified, and form and substance of the signs exist at the same time, just as every piece of paper has two sides. As a result, the content of signs is to some extent recognized and avoids the infinite delay in Derrida’s style of thinking. After the analysis of above definition of sign, it is obvious that Wang Mingyu and Li Youzheng are both trying to study Chinese semiotics based on the relationship between Saussure and Peirce. But there are differences. Li takes a path of “seperation,” that is, insisting on thinking about the relationship between Saussure’s and Peirce’s semiotic traditions about their oppositions and distinctions, and choosing to support one of them. Apparently, he is on the side of Saussure. Wang, however, is in the direction of “integration”: not to focus on the oppositions but to find the dependency on the basis of their differences. That means there exists inherent complementarity or “neutral” logic between the two semiotic traditions. So he tries to explore such a “neutral” logic to establish his own semiotic views on the basis of these two traditions of semiotics.

16.2.1 Part I: An Introduction to Linguistic Semiotics In this part, the author summarizes the neutral views of European semioticians: Saussure’s semiotic theories are communicative semiotics based on systems and codes of signs, while Peirce’s semiotic studies are on the basis of processes and semantic function of signs. “‘Effective communication’ and ‘creative semantic function’ are considered as the two typical features of linguistic signs” (Wang 2013: 9). There are complementarities between Saussure’s and Peirce’s semiotic traditions, thus they are not opposed but complemented with each other, and make it possible to formulate a “combined” theoretical system. Accordingly, Wang puts forward his definition of a “combined” semiotic viewpoint: “Semiotics is the theoretical and practical study on system and process of signs” (Wang 2013: 14). In this way, Saussure’s systematic formalism and Peirce’s processing substantialism are integrated into a self-consistent theoretical system. In the neutral semiotic perspective of “integration” of Saussure and Peirce, it implies thoughts on the relations between the following binary categories: Saussurean tradition versus Peircean tradition Linguistic signs versus non-linguistic signs System versus process

332

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

Formalization versus substantialization Homogeneity versus heterogeneity Immaterial versus material Structural relation versus signified relation Dualism versus trialism. That is to say, the above comparative research categories of Saussurean and Peircean semiotic traditions are regarded as the basic attributes of signs that have intrinsic, logical relevance in the “eclectic approach.” The basic task of semiotics is to study each of those comparative items that are complementary not opposing, and to oppose a narrow or absolute tendency toward a certain element. Such a natural view will be seen in Zhao Yiheng’s semiotic theories to be introduced in 16.3, yet the focus is different. In the semiotic exploration of this “eclectic approach,” Wang clearly centers on Saussure’s tradition while giving consideration to that of Pierce, and Zhao is on the other way round. The overriding difference is that Wang’s Modern Linguistic Semiotics features a distinct language-centered semiotic view, yet Zhao’s Semiotics: Principles and Problems (introduced in 16.3) embodies a “de-language-centered view.” Wang comments in this part of the book that semiotic studies shall “carry forward Saussure’s linguistic semiotics where language is positioned in the most typical sign system. Linguistic sign system is the master of all sign systems, because each sign system would ultimately resort to language for semantic or functional interpretation. Our focus is to build the theoretical system of linguistic semiotics through an analysis of the relationship between linguistics and semiotics” (Wang 2013: 36). This “eclectic approach” to linguistic signs can be summarized as two points: one is, for the relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic signs, to emphasize the central position of linguistic signs, and “we approve Saussure’s claim that linguistics is a part of semiotics…Modern linguistics is the main source and foundation of modern semiotics” (Wang 2013: 17). The other, for the study object, is to highlight the intentional sign system, primarily the linguistic sign system. In the “integrated” relation of linguistic and non-linguistic signs, semiotic studies based on Saussure’s tradition and linguistic signs are the key for us to read and comprehend the following parts of this book, and they are Part II: Theoretical origins of modern linguistic semiotics; Part III: Semiotic studies of texts; Part IV: Semiotic studies of sentences; Part V: Semiotic studies of metaphor.

16.2.2 Part II: Theoretical Origins of Modern Linguistic Semiotics The author in Part II mainly introduce score theories of some modern semioticians including Ferdinand de Saussure, Charles S. Peirce, Charles W. Morris, Roland Barthes, Umberto Eco, Roman Jakobson, Mikhail Bakhtin, Clemens Lautemann, Julia Kristeva and Algirdas Greimas, and most of them belong to the French

16.2

Modern Linguistic Semiotics

333

semiotic school led by Saussure such as Barthes, Kristeva and Greimas. Saussure and Greimas hold a systematic approach to structuralist semiotics and take linguistic signs as the main study object. Barthes and Kristeva, however, take a process approach to post-structuralist semiotics. They pay more attention to study multiple significations in the interaction between langue and parole, and analyze different non-linguistic signs or social phenomena under the structural logic of linguistic signs, e.g., Barthes’ study on semiotic phenomena like garment, photographs, food, etc., Kristeva’s concept of semiotic texts referring to not only linguistic (literary) texts, but various cultural phenomena that are “structured like language.” Jakobson, Bakhtin and Yuri Lotman belong to the Semiotic School of Russia and the former Soviet Union (FSU). Jacobson, who later moved to the USA, absorbed Peirce’s semiotic thoughts. He mainly holds a dynamic view of linguistic structuralism to semiotics in that his semiotic study on the classification of the six language functions and the expression mechanisms of metaphor and metonymy still bears a deep brand of structural semiotics. FSU theorist Bakhtin has obviously transcended Saussure’s structuralism and turned semiotic studies to discourse (equivalent to Saussure’s “parole”). This transcendence is based on the premise of Saussure’s “dialogue.” And Bakhtin intends to highlight the shaded side of parole and discourse by linguistic structuralism. For example, such heterogeneous elements in language system as materiality, subjectivity, sociality and discourse process still belong to the dual category of “structure or anti–structure” in the language-centered semiotics. Another FSU semiotician, Lotman also holds a post-structural linguistic view. He divides signs into two modeling systems: one is natural language system, and the other is non-linguistic cultural sign system that is secondary and derived from language. The secondary sign system not only needs to be interpreted by language, but requires language to provide it with a meaning production mechanism or structural organization principle. Among the ten semioticians mentioned above, only Peirce and Morris belong to the non-language-centered semiotic tradition. They share a dynamic semiotic view of substantialism, which emphasizes the decisive role of substantial elements of signs (or the heterogeneous elements of language structures) such as the objective substantiality, the materiality of signs and the user’s interpretative intention in producing meanings to signs. However, at the end, what counts is the “object” of signs in empiricism. The acquisition of truth, knowledge and objects is not a reflective activity but a process of semiotization, that is, the “object” of signs realized through material signs (representamen) and human behaviors (interpretant). Peirce’s trialism of signs, for one thing, turns the objective reality into a mode of signification or symbolized behavior rather than something true, while for another, the semiotic way or signification activity is a “true relevance”—a veridiction process to the objective reality indefinitely (perhaps never possible). Semioticians of post-structuralism like Barthes, Kristeva, Bakhtin and Lotman and of functional structuralism like Jacobson seem also care about materiality, subjectivity, process or non-systematic signification practice of signs, thus their theories are often similar with Peirce’s and are difficult to distinguish. And Part II of this book indicates the

334

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

philosophical and logical stand of Peirce’s semiotics, which shall be the radical difference compared with language-centered post-structuralist semiotics. The difference between Saussure’s language-centered semiotics and Peirce’s non-language-centered semiotics could not be decided purely on whether the object is linguistic signs or non-linguistic signs. Actually, semioticians like Barthes, Lotman and Bakhtin have long turned their attention to the non-linguistic field. For example, Barthes’s “Semantics of the Object” (Barthes 2008: 187) and Bakhtin’s “side by side with the natural phenomena, with the equipment of technology, and with articles for consumption, there exists a special world—the world of signs” (Bakhtin 1998: 350). Saussure’s tradition includes non-linguistic semiotic studies as well, but its essence is “viewing objects by language.” Post-structuralist semiotics focuses on heterogeneous or substantial elements of language structure (such as materiality, subjectivity, process, etc.) and describes semiotization as an indefinite signification process. And its ultimate purpose is to take these structural (homogeneous) and anti-structural (heterogeneous) elements and the associated ways of the linguistic sign systems as decisive factors in producing meanings of all signs, including objects, paintings, rituals, behaviors, etc. The post-structuralist semiotics, though, has strong dynamic and heterogeneous features, and it in essence still belongs to Saussure’s semiotic tradition of formalism—taking the meaning production mechanism of linguistic signs as an organizing principle of all signs. Yet Peirce’s semiotics goes beyond linguistic signs, and macroscopically analyzes heterogeneous elements of signs like materiality and subjectivity, which means we need to respect the signification principle or “grammar” of signs, for example, the “iconicity” principle of icon, “causality” of index, and “convention” of linguistic signs. Peirce also studies linguistic semiotics, but the way he views linguistic signs is through logic and object. Peirce equates non-linguistic signs with linguistic signs, which reflects his logical thought of “real relevance”: Both linguistic and non-linguistic signs are variables that represent a certain logical truth value, or the actual value reflecting objective reality to a certain extent. Nonetheless, Peirce’s “object” of signs is a truth value rather than an objective reality, and infinite approximation and eternal pursuit to the objective reality are the ultimate aims of such kind of semiotics. Therefore, if structuralist and post-structuralist linguistic semiotics of Saussure is humanistic, signifier-based and formalistic, Peirce’s semiotics is objective and logical, signified-based and substantial. So the fundamental distinction between language-centered and non-language-centered semiotics depends not on research objects, but on research methods: “viewing objects by language” or “viewing language by objects?” Only when Saussure’s traditions are clearly distinguished from Peirce’s can the internal logic of the two conventions be established on this basis. Wang Mingyu’s Modern Linguistic Semiotics holds an “integrated” view, yet his main standpoint still lies in language-centered semiotics. And he chooses to “viewing language by integrating objects and language” rather than Barthes’s “viewing objects by language.” He insists on taking linguistic signs as the study object of semiotics with the focus on Saussure’s tradition while taking that of Peirce into consideration.

16.2

Modern Linguistic Semiotics

335

Among all the semioticians mentioned in this book, only Eco presents a neutral theoretical tendency of “integrating” Saussure’s and Peirce’s semiotics. The others hold a semiotic viewpoint of “seperation,” which means supporting either Saussure or Peirce, and “their difference in standpoints is mainly about whether language structure should be a model or a ‘blueprint’ of non-linguistic cultural phenomena” (Wang 2013: 80). The viewpoint of “integration” (Wang follows Li’s claim that Eco’s is an eclectic approach) focuses on describing internal common logic or transitional phenomena between Saussure’s and Peirce’s semiotics. Taking Eco’s analysis of “articulation methods” of non-linguistic signs as an example, Wang points out in Modern Linguistic Semiotics that “articulation” is a structural model of language. Eco holds that non-linguistic signs embrace systems with no articulation, systems with the first articulation (both are not the structural features of linguistic signs), systems with the second articulation that are similar to language (e.g., a six-digit phone number), and even codes with three articulations of super-linguistic signs (e.g., video frames). It is obvious that Eco’s analysis of non-linguistic signs integrates Peirce’s non-linguistic signs with no articulation and Saussure’s linguistic signs with articulations, rather than utterly reversing to either of them, which of course represents a neutral theoretical viewpoint. “Neutrality” is a kind of theory that focuses on resolving and leaping those binary opposites, and its semiotics includes the “integrated and neutral view,” “postmodern neutral view,” and “overall Chinese traditional neutral view” like the neutral thought in semiotic theory of Chinese characters or Zhou Yi (the core of the I Ching, an ancient Chinese divination text). We believe that Eco’s semiotics belongs to the “integrated and neutral view,” where he intends to consider Peirce’s logic system and Saussure’s semantic system as two related elements in the operation mechanism of signs and aims to describe the internal structure and external boundary of semiotics. The “postmodern neutral view” abandons the demand for systematicness and boundedness in the semiotic world, and turns to establish such relationships of all semiotic theories (including Saussure’s and Peirce’s) as collage, intertextuality, reference, disassembly and amalgamation of various semiotic theories. It tends to regard semiotics as a kind of signification activity of universal signs. Other features of this neutral view will be introduced in the next section about Zhang Yiheng’s semiotics studies. According to the analysis of the above ten semioticians in this part, Wang Mingyu identifies the significance of semiotics of language-centered and systematic theories. “We believe that language is the most typical sign system, and only by comprehending the essence of the linguistic sign system can we better explain other sign systems,” and the author’s language-centered semiotic view emphasizes that semiotics has acquired a rigorous theoretical system from language, and thus opposes “semiotic imperialism” that shall marginalize and nihilize semiotics (Wang 2013: 160). At the same time, the author also agrees with Eco’s perspective and devotes considerable enthusiasm to explore the inner logic of the two semiotic traditions, which shall be indicated in the following parts of the book.

336

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

16.2.3 Part III: Semiotic Studies of Text “Text” in this part has transcended linguistic and pragmatic categories of so-called parole organizational units and become an object of semiotics. But sometimes “text” in semiotics may deviate from the track of linguistic signs and involve in a broader field of literary and cultural signs. By using “text” here, the author intends to confine text within the scope of purely linguistic signs. The significance of “text,” however, lies in the author’s introduction of the “double sides, double layers and double dimensions” semiotic theory featuring an “integrated” methodology in this book. It is only one side that we try to discover the internal, neutral and complementary logic in Saussurean and Peircean semiotics as “integrated” semiotics. The premise of “integrated” semiotics is to find out the systematic oppositions and differences between the two: (Saussure represents a semiotic tradition of formalism while Peirce represents a semiotic tradition of substantialism). It aims to realize neutralization and complementarity of the two theories on the basis of their differences. Thus, the integration of Saussure’s and Peirce’s semiotics is actually the “integration of form and substance.” If there is no delimitation, there is no transboundary; if there is no separation, there is no integration. It was not Peirce but Saussure3 and his successor Louis Hjelmslev who actually provided the theoretical basis for the “integrated view” of “form” and “substance.” Hjelmslev, by using the theory of “double sides and double layers,” further develops Saussure’s dichotomy of form and substance; “double sides” refers to a sign that can be distinguished as what Saussure called signifier and signified, which are, respectively, called “expression side” and “content side” by Hjelmslev. And “double layers” means that each side can be further divided into two layers of “form” and “substance.” For example, the signifier or the expression side of a word can be further distinguished as material substances (i.e., phones) and structural forms (i.e., phonemes), while the signified or content side can be classified from content forms (i.e., sememe structures of concepts) and content substances (i.e., contents or referents of concepts). The theory of “double sides and double layers” provides a theoretical basis for the “integrated” study of semiotics, yet Hjelmslev is still a follower of Saussure’s “seperated” semiotics, emphasizing form rather than substance in the study of semiotics. On the basis of inheriting and absorbing the semiotic thoughts from the former Soviet Union, Wang in Modern Linguistic Semiotics takes the “double sides and 3

Saussure distinguishes langue and parole, internal and external linguistics, and claims that the external elements of langue and parole are heterogeneous, non-systematic and substantial, while the internal elements are formal. Saussure’s semiotics of “form” and “substance” and their differences provide a theoretical premise for the “integrated view,” because the concept of “integration” is based on the principle of distinction. If there is no sufficient description of the differences between “form” and “substance,” there is no basis for the “integration.” Saussure’s semiotics, however, is in a direction of “separation”: “My definition of language presupposes the exclusion of everything that is outside its organism or system-in a word, of everything known as ‘external linguistics’” (Saussure 1980: 43).

16.2

Modern Linguistic Semiotics

337

double layers” theory from the “seperated” view into the “integrated” view, that is, to examine the interactive and complementary neutrality between form and substance from their distinction and opposition. According to Wang, the “double sides and double layers” includes two principles: the first is delimitation, namely the distinction principle, which aims to find the differences and oppositions between formal and substantive elements in linguistic units at all levels; the second is transboundary, or the unity principle, which refers to a neutral relationship that has dynamic complementarity and opposing dissolution between form and substance. The distinction principle is called the principle of “paradigmatic integrity” in Modern Linguistic Semiotics, which attempts to take a semiotic unity (e.g., text) to distinguish its layers with “form and substance” as its core elements, and reorganize the distinguished units of these layers into a new semiotic unity in the paradigmatic dimension. For example, the author believes the expression (signifier) side of a text has two layers that are substance and form: “the substance layer embodies a code system supported by the language system, carrier attributes of texts and other types of sign mediums it contains, which are called external materials; the form layer refers to the way that substantive elements of texts are connected, so it is called the internal structure of texts.” Wang also points out that the content (signified) side also contains form and substance: “Substance represents the external world as reflected in the text, which is mainly manifested as the denotational information; such denotational information covers a wide range of real or virtual, material or spiritual worlds and involves four stages in objectifying things—things, objectives, representations and objects.” “Content form of the whole text embodies macro-arrangement of semantic content of texts, including the overall content structure of texts and semantic hierarchy of the content such as propositional semantics, subjective modality semantics and accompanying semantics” (Wang 2013: 306). The author’s “semantic hierarchy” reveals that the content side of signs contains a hierarchical referent domain,4 and reflects the binary opposition between form and substance. The unity principle is called the principle of “syntagmatic coherence,” which aims to find out the relevance and complementarity of the substantial and formal elements of signs in the process of integration. For example, “coherence in textual signs contains two semiotic sides—expression and content; in each side, coherence possesses external substance and internal form, which can ensure that the textual coherence of syntactics, logics, pragmatics and cognition would be achieved, respectively, in four aspects: substantive level of expression, formal level of expression, substantive level of content and formal level of content” (Wang 2013: 306–307). Among them, the syntactic coherence (substance layer of expression, i.e., external material elements of signs) and logical coherence (form layer of expression, i.e., logical connection between substantial components of texts, Meng Hua argues that “the signified of signs is essentially a signified domain.” This domain mainly includes four levels: object in presence, object in existence, conceptual object and semantic object. According to the decreasing degree of formalization, the order should be semantic object, conceptual object, object in existence and object in presence (Meng 2014: 29).

4

338

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

including linear logical relations and relations of logical consistency) constitutes the integrated relationship of signs in the expression side; pragmatic coherence (substance layer of content, i.e., external context elements of content, such as existence of things, objectives, representations and objects) and cognitive coherence (form layer of content, which refers to conceptual or schematized state of knowledge structures related to language use, such as prototype situations, scripts, frameworks, schemata and social representations) constitute the integrated relationship of content in signs: emphasizing that the external and cognitive contexts are “two interdependent but distinct categories” (Wang 2013: 293). Modern Linguistic Semiotics has so far summarized the “integrated view” of textual signs as two dimensions (paradigmatic integrity and syntagmatic coherence) on the basis of the “double sides and double layers.” These binary elements, composed of form and substance, belong to interdependent and different categories. This integrated view raises five basic arguments about “the basic theoretical and methodological framework of textual semiotics” (Wang 2013: 307): (1) The fundamental difference between linguistic semiotics and linguistics is that in the study of “double sides, double layers and double dimensions,” linguistic semiotics focuses on signification relations, that is, “double sides and double layers” as determinant to decide the “double dimensions,” linguistics, especially structural linguistics, focuses on structural relations at the form layer, which is dominated by “double dimensions” (syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations). (2) This signification relationship is integrated and neutral, that is, to examine each element in the “interdependent and interpenetrating” relationship between form and substance. (3) It is the methodology of “integrating” form and substance that provides a theoretical basis for modern semiotics to combine Saussure’s formalism and Peirce’s substantialism. And it is also reflected in Part IV—Semiotic Studies of Sentence in Modern Linguistic Semiotics. (4) It is emphasized that semiotics has its own rigorous system and clear boundaries, and metalanguage and academic discourse that constitute semiotics are two dimensions (paradigmatic integrity and syntagmatic coherence) on the basis of “double sides and double layers,” which is also constructed centering on linguistic signs. The author in his book provides this relatively more mature and systematic theoretical research paradigm for modern Chinese semiotics. (5) The formal and systematic study of linguistic signs has introduced substantial and signifying elements, which makes the “substantiality” of signs (including the materiality of the expression side and the objectivity of the content side) an important feature of Wang’s semiotic theories, and the fragmented texts that traditional linguistics ignored a probably major content of textual semiotics. For example, notices, postcards, letters, notes, online chats, contemporary rough engraving, handwritten messages, various congratulatory messages, memoirs, diaries, note-takings, autograph albums, resumes, explanations, speeches, jotters, desk calendars, plans, recipes, incantations, prayers… (Wang 2013: 210).

16.2

Modern Linguistic Semiotics

339

In these signs, materiality and substantiality—physical carrier of the expression side and scene object of the content side—would have a significant impact on the meaning of signs.

16.2.4 Part IV: Semiotic Studies of Sentence The “eclectic approach” to form and substance in Part III is further elevated to the “integration” of Saussure’s formalism and Peirce’s substantialism in this part, and it becomes the guideline for the study of sentence signs: “This part mainly adopts a research method of combining static description with dynamic analysis, and its theoretical basis is Saussure’s dichotomy, Peirce’s trichotomy and the theory of meaning hierarchy of linguistic signs” (Wang 2013: 314). How to integrate Saussure’s and Peirce’s semiotic traditions? Part IV starts with analyzing sentence signs from “hierarchy,” the “fundamental attribute of linguistic signs,” which can be divided into two aspects: structure and signification. The structural hierarchy of linguistic signs is generally divided into such units as phoneme, syllable, morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, etc. Sentence, as one of the hierarchies, has a dual nature of “abstraction at the langue level and concretion at the parole level” (Wang 2013: 316). Traditional linguistics deals with this duality through a binary opposition: syntax (sentence) or pragmatics (statement). Yet Wang in Modern Linguistic Semiotics adheres to a position of “integration”: “We consider that sentence and statement are not contradictory, but complementary and interacted. Statements can be taken as a concrete embodiment of abstract sentence patterns, and are bound to be associated with the studies of sentences…They cannot be confused, nor can they be isolated or separated. Sentence and statement are both units of communication, and their mutual relationship is similar to that of langue and parole” (Wang 2013: 313–314). The main standpoint of the “eclectic approach” in Modern Linguistic Semiotics, therefore, is to establish a complementary, transitional and neutral relationship in the dualistic heterogeneity or differentiality of signs or elements. The priority of semiotic studies of sentence, however, is about signification, not structure; otherwise, it would become linguistics rather than semiotics. The signification hierarchy is composed of static and dynamic elements. On the static level of signified signs, Wang summarizes three layers on the basis of related discussions both at home and abroad—sub-sign level, sign level and super-sign level5 (Wang 2013: 347), which, respectively, belong to three categories—material,

“Super-sign level” here is mainly a concept of “parole” signs opposite to “langue” signs, and it is related to “super-signs” in this part, as they both focus on heterogeneity and substantiality of signs. Yet there are also differences: “super-sign level” focuses on Saussure’s parole; “super-signs” focuses on the transition, transfer, correlation and boundary between linguistic and non-linguistic signs, as well as different heterogenic signs.

5

340

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

langue and parole. As a static unit of signified signs, the duality of sign level (langue) and super-sign level (parole) of sentences is mainly analyzed in this part. The signified of sentences at the “sign level” is related to the “first appellation,” which means sentences “mainly summarize and denote a certain situation” (Wang 2013: 320); and the signified of sentences at “super-sign level” is connected to the “secondary appellation,” that is, sentences “have specific and definite reference” after involving in the communicative context (Wang 2013: 320). Take the sentence “it is raining” as an example. If this is merely an abstract generalization of a certain situation at the langue level or a kind of “referential potential” (i.e., a set of sentence-related contexts), it is the “first appellation.” Or it would be the “secondary appellation” if it refers to a concrete situation of being raining, namely the sentence is a reference of a specific object. Two appellations of a sentence, however, are not opposite or mutually exclusive. “These two appellations can be converted from one to another, and such a conversion is a reversible process from concrete to abstract or from abstract to concrete” (Wang 2013: 320). The meaning of sentence signs lies in “not only reference, but reference potential” (Wang 2013: 389). Thus, based on the above-dual signified view of sentence signs, the author puts forward a “neutral” view of semiotics that within or between signs featuring heterogeneity and opposition, there exists some kind of correlation, mutual transition and complementation. Neutrality of signs is the core issue of the “eclectic approach,” such as the relationships of opposition, transition and complementation between signs and super-signs or between the “first appellation” and the “secondary appellation” in the sentence hierarchy. When static signification is interpreted into dynamic signification, such interpretation is a semiosis, and the sub-sign level, sign level and super-sign level (or material signs, langue signs and parole signs) in static signification, respectively, correspond to Peirce’s representamen, interpretant and object, or Morris’s grammar, semantics and pragmatics. Thus, the “integration” of two semiotic traditions of Saussure and Peirce would be realized: “Linguistic signs are the unity of the content side and the expression side, while semantics, syntax and pragmatics are three basic aspects interrelated and mutually conditioned in that unity” (Wang 2013: 384). Wang deals with the two heterogeneous semiotic traditions of Saussure and Peirce in a “neutral” standpoint, and suggest semiotic scholars to integrate these two traditions rather than isolating or opposing them.

16.2.5 Part V: Semiotic Studies of Metaphor This part addresses the semiotic studies of metaphor on the basis of metaphor research for linguistic rhetoric and cognition, thus finishing the theoretical framework of this book. In summary, the first two parts, respectively, elaborate the basic theory and ideological origin of linguistic semiotics. The third, fourth and fifth parts are about theory construction of linguistic semiotics around three layers of “super-sign, sign and sub-sign.” “Part III: Semiotic studies of text” belongs to the

16.2

Modern Linguistic Semiotics

341

study at the “super-sign layer,” which is not only the intersection of langue and parole, but the intersection of linguistic signs and non-linguistic signs. Text in this intersection leans to parole and heterogeneous sign. “Part IV: Semiotic studies of sentence” is the study at the “sign layer,” which is both the intersection of langue and parole, and intersection of “signs” and “sub-signs.” Sentences in this intersection play a role of “transition” and “integration.” “Part V: Semiotic studies of metaphor enter into a deeper level of “sub-signs” and “word signs.” It is the intersection of “signs” and “sub-signs,” and meanwhile moving toward “sub-signs” and “words.” What needs to be emphasized, however, is that the so-called intersection here (langue and parole, linguistic and non-linguistic signs, signs and sub-signs, etc.) is a neutral issue of semiotics, that is, the dissolution of opposition on the basis of binary distinction. Thus, in Part V, the author mainly introduces three theoretical considerations: (1) How metaphor is transformed into a semiotic category; (2) The semiotic studies of metaphor pay more regard on word signs. (3) The semiotic essence of metaphorical similarity

16.2.5.1

Transformation of Semiotic Categories

According to Modern Linguistic Semiotics, metaphor traditionally belongs to the category of rhetoric or pragmatics, and it becomes one of the most basic signification means of language after it enters the domain of philosophy and cognitive science. The author quotes a variety of discussions on metaphor in the book from world-famous scholars, for example, in Ernst Cassirer’s words, “Language is metaphorical by its nature and essence,” which means language is a way of giving meaning. Metaphorical signification is based on dual meanings.6 Ivor Richards and Charles Ogden commented that the sole criterion of metaphor, in fact, is that a word represents two ideas at the same time” (Wang 2013: 451). Max Black believed the duality reflects “the projection of the vehicle to the tenor” while Paul Ricoeur considered that metaphor is an innovation and breakthrough in the conventional use of language and a study beyond the meaning in the dictionary, which absolutely is a creative process of cognitive thinking. George Lakoff and David Johnson’s theory of cognitive metaphor, however, emphasizes that metaphor is a way that people understand and experience things in one field by using the knowledge of another. On the basis of reviewing the previous theories, the author concludes that the cognitive feature of metaphor is “to understand one thing through another,” and is the essential feature of linguistic thinking as well as the universal way of human signs (Wang 2013: 470–473). Moreover, the metaphor also exists in non-linguistic phenomena such as painting, religion, music, architecture and movies. Thus, the “Signifier and signified are not a fixed one-to-one relation but have tensions between them. Signs in one hierarchy that can produce meaning, or signs as a whole will transform their role in a new context; thus, they become new signifiers, and then new corresponding signified appear. So far, words in different hierarchies are endowed with dual meanings” (Wang 2013: 451).

6

342

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

way of “understanding one thing through another” becomes the entering point of metaphor to connect linguistics and semiotics, or an embodiment of the language thinking mechanism in all semiotic thoughts. Thus, we can see that there are important differences between metaphor of linguistic rhetoric and metaphor of cognitive linguistics or semiotics: Linguistic metaphor principle (such as Jacobson’s poetic principle) is mainly used as a rhetorical device, which is regarded as associative art of two words or concepts in linear language; yet metaphor of semiotics is mainly used to indicate relations and express the unknown, which means to express reality by means of visibility and known means and it develops the way we understand the world while hiding its own rhetoricity. From the perspective of neutrality, linguistic metaphor focuses on enlarging the distance and binary oppositions between vehicle and tenor, yet semiotic metaphor prefers neutrality and attempts to bridge or narrow that distance.

16.2.5.2

Carrier of Metaphor at the Level of Word Signs

Since metaphor is a thinking mechanism of linguistic signs, then by which layer of signs should metaphorical thinking, according to the “hierarchy” view, be carried remains a question. Modern Linguistic Semiotics tells us that metaphor is everywhere: words, sentences, texts, images, etc., can all be the carrier of metaphorical signs. The author also adds, “The direct carrier of metaphor is words, and signified signs with the concept of metaphor featuring openness, multilevel, and ambiguity, are different from other signified signs” (Wang 2013: 488). That means for the dominance of metaphor, word signs are its typical or direct carriers. It is because metaphor has two main features—dual meanings or two symbolic levels, for example, the word “rose” refers to Rosaceae plants at the first level and love at the second level, and the similarity between them constitutes the metaphorical relationship. Word signs are the most typical and direct carrier for duality analysis, such as the analysis of modes of signification (arbitrariness and similarity) related to metaphorical signs, the analysis of literal meaning and metaphorical meaning, the analysis of polysemy and transferred meaning, as well as the analysis of one meaning corresponding to more than one signs and innovation of signs, most of which are carried out at the level of words (Wang 2013: 550–561). Word, as the main carrier of metaphor, refers to both langue structural units and “words,” namely parole units: a semiotized naming unit, which is a way that one thing understands another or one word names a concept. Thus, metaphorical signs become the intersection of langue (such as literal meaning) and parole (metaphorical meaning), and Peirce’s traditional trialism of grammar, semantics and pragmatics also works. Word units, as a sign carrier of metaphor, further obtain a neutral feature: the “lexical” nature of langue structure and the “nominal” nature of parole process, and it is the context of sub-signs, signs and super-signs, and it appears in the structural form of sub-signs.

16.2

Modern Linguistic Semiotics

343

The phenomenon that words are the main carrier of metaphor can be called “lexicality of metaphor.” According to the “polarity” (or alternative) view of signs, each kind of sign has its own grammar and boundary. Therefore, the difference and boundary of metaphor and image lie in that metaphor has “lexicality,” while the image has “iconicity.” According to the neutral view (both this and that) of signs, metaphor, however, bears some characteristics of image, so it bears a “metaphorical iconicity” feature of neutrality and super-signs. There will be no boundary without delimitation, thus there will be no neutral conclusion of “metaphorical iconicity of metaphor” without the polar study of “lexicality of metaphor.”

16.2.5.3

Semiotic Essence of Metaphorical Similarity

Metaphor involves a fundamental issue of semiotics: Mode of signification, that is, the relationship between the signifier and the signified, sound and meaning, sign and object, literal meaning and transferred meaning, meaning and reference, primary sign and secondary sign, etc. There are two basic modes of signification in linguistic signs: arbitrariness and motivation, but which one is the primary remains an academic controversy. Saussure’s viewpoint is that arbitrariness is the primary feature of linguistic signs, while Cassirer holds that metaphor, or motivation, is the essential attribute of language. But whichever standpoint we choose to take, we cannot deny that arbitrariness and motivation constitute the most basic dualistic mode of signification. Motivation of signs includes naming motivation (e.g., signs name objects whether in an objective and realistic way or in a subjective and motivational way) and structural motivation (i.e., naming motivation becomes a fixed element in language structure or literal meaning, for example, “mouse,” “minibus,” etc.). Metaphor, obviously, has both naming motivation and structural motivation and is a non-objective, realistic and subjective motivational motivation, which is called “similar” mode of signification7 in Modern Linguistic Semiotics. The author also argues that similarity is not an equivalent to Peirce’s “iconicity” (iconic signification), because “iconicity” is only “a kind of similarity” (Wang 2013: 504). Thus, the connotation of semiotic motivation is transformed from “iconicity” of visual signs with copying features to “similarity” of language signs with conceptual associative features. The author also distinguishes the two although this transformation has a tendency of language centralism. “Iconicity” and “similarity” are often confused in academics, but such confusion is not a neutral view. A neutral view means to split the difference and complement with each other based on the distinction between iconicity and similarity. Neutral studies, therefore, shall primarily focus on differentiation.

“The semantic meaning of tenor and vehicle contains a borrowed motivation and forms a paradigm for the speaker to choose from on the basis of transferable motivation, and the characteristic that constitutes this paradigm is similarity” (Wang 2013: 476).

7

344

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

16.2.6 Summary Modern Linguistic Semiotics adheres to a language-centered semiotic view, which represents semiotic boundaries (systematic characteristics of semiotics endowed by language) and professionalism (a series of complex knowledge areas and strict terminology operation procedures provided by linguistic signs) insisted by academic semiotics, and represents the mainstream of Chinese semiotics of rationalism. Systematicness, among them, embodies the author’s hierarchical view of linguistic semiotics, which can be summarized as follows: units of signs at different levels take on different functions of the whole semiotic system while serving for the whole integrated system. Therefore, we consider that in Modern Linguistic Semiotics, the theoretical overview in Part I and the origin of semiotics in Part II have an intrinsic logical relationship with Part III, Part IV and Part V. Text signs in Part III, among others, belongs to the surface-level super-sign layer, which is the intersection of linguistic signs and social culture, or linguistic signs and non-linguistic signs; sentence signs in Part IV belongs to the shallow-level sign layer, and is the transitional part of langue signs and parole signs; metaphorical signs with words as the main carrier in Part V belongs to the sub-sign layer, which is a deep-level signification mode of linguistic signs. Such a rigorous and complete theoretical system pushes Chinese rationalism and language-centered semiotics to a new commanding height. The second theoretical feature of Modern Linguistic Semiotics is the neutral “eclectic approach” dominated by linguistic signs, i.e., to study each element in the differentiated relationship between linguistic signs and non-linguistic signs, linguistics and semiotics, langue and parole, Saussure and Peirce, form and substance, etc., and to transform the contradictory relationship of these binary elements into a mutually complementary, transitional and unified neutral relation. The book, therefore, is a classic work that represents Chinese semiotics going forward from dualistic “separation” to dualistic “integration.” The eclectic approach is the unity of polar and neutral semiotic studies. Polar semiotic studies, or the “separated approach” (principle of separation), is trying to delimit each kind of signs and clarify the distinctiveness. Yet neutral semiotic studies are based on the principle of unity: to observe the transboundary, transitional and intermediate nature of heterogeneous signs on the basis of distinction and delimitation of signs. The eclectic approach, therefore, does not reject but develops on the basis of the separated approach. Finally, the theoretical model of “double sides, double layers and double dimensions” in the book contains a law of signification: the signifying relation of “double sides and double layers” determines the structure of “double dimensions,” which exactly distinguishes linguistic semiotics from linguistics, and the latter focuses more on the restriction of structural relations to signifying relations. But there is still a long way to go before the “double sides, double layers and double dimensions” theory can be effectively used to analyze Chinese or Chinese characters. That is because Chinese cultural signs, including Chinese, Chinese

16.2

Modern Linguistic Semiotics

345

characters and Zhou Yi (the core of I Ching, an ancient Chinese divination text), are inseparable and neutral in terms of double sides (signifier and signified), double layers (form and substance) and double dimensions; and they are formulated based on the principle of metaphorical iconicity. The similarities and differences of “neutrality” between modern linguistic semiotics and traditional Chinese semiotics will be a key issue in semiotic studies.

16.3

Semiotics: Principles and Problems

Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics is based on the comparison of two semiotic traditions of Saussure and Peirce (via Umberto Eco). It introduces semiotic pedigree of the world (mainly the Western world) to readers. At the same time, the author’s semiotic concept inclines to the semiotic tradition of Saussure, which represents the tendency of Chinese semiotic structuralism in the 1980s and 1990s. Modern Linguistic Semiotics seeks to bridge different semiotic traditions of Saussure and Peirce and to adopt an eclectic approach with language dominating when discussing binary relationships such as linguistic signs vs non-linguistic signs, linguistics vs semiotics, langue vs parole and form vs substance. It represents the mainstream trend that in the twenty-first century, “structuralism” is no longer the dominant approach of Chinese semiotic studies and that semiotic studies are now developing toward the integration of Saussure and Peirce. The third representative work of modern Chinese semiotic studies we will discuss is Semiotics: Principles and Problems. Semiotics: Principles and Problems is authored by Zhao Yiheng, whose early phase study of semiotics was based on Saussure’s structuralism as well. His Semiotics of Literature: Selected Essays (published by Baihua Literature and Art Publishing House, completed in the 1980s) in 2004 is about structuralist semiotics. The early phase of modern Chinese semiotic studies (1980–1999) focused on translating and introducing Western semiotics. In every ten major publications on translation or introduction of semiotics in China, five were on structuralist semiotics, two were on the general theory of semiotics and the other three were, respectively, on phenomenological semiotics, Morris’ semiotics in Peirce’s semiotic tradition and others. Semiotic works by Chinese scholars were mainly on application, which means they used Western semiotic theories to explain cultural and semiotic facts and there were barely any mature and systematic semiotic theories.8

8 Mainstream Chinese works on semiotics at that time include: Yu Jianzhang (俞建章) and Ye Shuxian (叶舒宪). Signs: Language and Art (《符号:语言与艺术》). 1985; He Xin (何新). Signs as Art Phenomenon—Culturology Explained (《艺术现象的符号——文化学阐释》). 1987; Xiao Feng (肖峰). Study Signs from the Perspective of Philosophy (《从哲学看符号》). 1989; Yang Chunshi (杨春时). Art Symbols and Explanations (《艺术符号与解释》) (1989); Wang Desheng (王德胜). Scientific Semiotics (《科学符号学》). 1992; Wang Hongqi,(王红旗). Mysterious Signs in Life (《生活中的神秘符号》). 1992; Yang Xiliang (杨习良). Rhetorical

346

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

Zhao Yiheng is a systematic and original scholar in the Chinese semiotic community. His A General Narratology (first edition, Sichuan University Press, December, 2013) inherited his semiotic research tradition of form-cultural theory and extended the study of narratology to every possible heterogeneous text— written, spoken, imaged, performing, gaming, visionary, substantial, etc., thus he has created a brand new field of semiotic narratology in China. From the study of semiotic ontology, here, we discuss another representative work of Zhao Yiheng— Semiotics: Principles and Problems (Nanjing University Press 2011). The book Semiotics: Principles and Problems has three features: (1) It also shows the tendency of bridging the divergence between Saussure and Peirce, but Wang Mingyu’s work is biased toward Saussure while Zhao’s toward Peirce.9 (2) The connection is meaning-centered. While Wang’s “eclectic approach” aims at discovering the inner logical complementarity and systematic integrity; the neutral connection of Zhao, centering on the “theory of meaning,” aims at considering both Saussure and Peirce’s traditions while absorbing their essence in the signification practices, which could be concluded as “meaning-based semiotics.” (3) “Meaning-based semiotics” inherited formalism’s tradition of “the language speaks I” and yet has the tendency of intentionalism’s “I speak the language.” As a result, when it comes to explaining the relation between language and meaning, Zhao’s semiotic theories focus more on explaining the subject and his semiotic study pays more attention to practice and interdisciplinary studies. Zhao’s semiotic study has influenced many fields of humanities and has helped advance semiotic studies in China.

Semiotics (《修辞符号学》). 1993; Liu Yunzhang (刘云章). Introduction to Mathematic Semiotics (《数学符号学概论》). 1993; Ding Ersu (丁尔苏). Beyond Noumenon (《超越本 体》). 1994; Zhou Xiaofeng (周晓风). Semiotic Aesthetic of Modern Poetry. 1995; Lian Fu (连 甫). Signs in Your Life: Semiotics ABC (《你身边的符号:符号学入门》). 1997; Wu Wenhu (吴 文虎). Symbolic World in Advertisements (《广告的符号世界》). 1997; Qi Xiaobin (齐效斌). Cultural Signs in Records of the Historian (《 < 史记 > 文化符号论》). 1998; Gou Zhixiao (苟 志效). Meaning and Signs (《意义与符号》). 1999; Liu Zhi (刘智). News Culture and Signs (《新闻文化与符号》). 1999; Meng Hua (孟华). Principles of Symbolization (《符号表达原 理》). 1999; New Horizons in Language and Semiotics in China Edited by Chen Zhi’an (陈治安) and Liu Jiarong (刘家荣). 1999. Source: Linguistic Semiotics (Wang Mingyu 2004: 492, Higher Education Press). 9 “Part I: Principles reviews all patterns of semiotics and tries to learn widely from others’ strong points. Study of semiotics at present, however, inherits more of Peirce’s pattern rather than Saussure’s, which should not be avoided mentioning” (Zhao 2011: 14).

16.3

Semiotics: Principles and Problems

347

16.3.1 Reflection on the Binary Relationship Between Saussure and Peirce Peirce and Saussure created two kinds of semiotics almost at the same period of time without knowing about each other. There seems to be no commensurability between their theories, at least no comparative study could be performed between them, but there is an inner binary complementary relationship between their semiotic theories. According to the binary concept of “form and substance” of structuralist semiotics,10 Saussure’s linguistic or structuralist semiotics prefers formalism, while Peirce’s semiotics prefers ontology (substance). The reflection on the relationship between form and substance makes the “dialogue” between Saussure and Peirce possible. Chinese semiotics, which developed subsequently, has the advantage of taking such possibility into consideration. In the communication history of Western semiotics in modern China, commensurability and communication between Saussure and Peirce have become a theme of Chinese semiotic studies. This trend first appears in Li Youzheng’s Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics, then becomes the main content in Wang Mingyu’s Modern Linguistic Semiotics and it also shows up in Zhao Yiheng’s Semiotics: Principles and Problems: Peirce did not know Saussure’s creating another semiotic pattern but he seemed to use his semiotic trialism to go against Saussure’s binary opposition and he was fully aware of the possible giant difference of such contrast…the reason of Saussure’s semiotic theories becoming systematic is the ‘arbitrariness’ of his semiotic meanings; dualistic formula itself would not necessarily lead to closure. For example, Hjelmslev and Barthes proposed the cascade method for further semiosis on the basis of the signifier/signified dualistic formula. Peirce’s development concept of signs is not just about ternary of meanings of signs, nor is it just about replacing arbitrariness with ‘motivatedness’—it is more about his emphasis on ‘infinite semiosis’: the process of semiotic signification is theoretically endless. In practice, semiotic signification ‘can be interrupted, but not be terminated’ (Zhao 2011: 105).

In Semiotics: Principles and Problems, different semiotic terms of Saussure and Peirce are concluded as pairs of dualistic relationship items: arbitrariness/ motivatedness, systematicness/processing, dualism/trialism, etc. Zhao’s reflection of these relationship items has become a new, higher level of exploration toward semiotic theory—reflection of signification mode of signs: its nature decides the nature of the structure of signs. He emphasizes that “arbitrariness” of Saussure leads to systematicness while “motivatedness” of Peirce leads to non-systematic processing, which shows that the two theories actually describe the two sides of signification mode of signs: Saussure’s arbitrariness is based on the absence of object and is isolated from the reality world, so meaning of signs must come from In short, “form” means inner structural elements and rules of sign systems while “substance” means outer elements (subject, object, context, etc.). Sign system is a synthesis of form and substance. Formal semiotics eliminates entity elements as much as possible; however, while researching on the influence the elements of substance have on sign system, ontological semiotics also deals with the relationship between substance and form dialectically.

10

348

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

the semiotic structural system; Peirce’s motivatedness relies more on some motivated connections (e.g., iconic relation, index relation, symbolic relation, etc.) between signs and the reality world, and meaning relies on different correlations of motivation and process of motivatedness, so the structural system’s influence on signs and its meanings must be weakened. So to speak, Saussure and Peirce represent two different measures of signification theorem. This division leads to another result: systematicness generated from arbitrariness is a major feature of linguistic signs, while non-systematicness generated from motivatedness is a major feature of non-linguistic signs—so the division represents the relation between linguistic and non-linguistic signs. Semiotics: Principles and Problems points out this non-language-centered semiotic tendency: “Language is not the symbolic paradigm of Peirce’s semiotic theory…Peirce believes that distinguished by how the meaning happens to be attached to (or associated with) the pattern, there are three kinds of signs: the icon, the index and the symbol and the former two are motivated” (Zhao 2011: 78). This dualistic summarization and understanding toward arbitrariness/motivatedness, systematicness/non-systematicness and language-centered theory/non-language-centered theory have created a possibility of a new semiotic system. Chinese scholars have an inherent advantage when it comes to this kind of exploration toward this signification measure. Chinese linguist Xu Tongqiang argues, “The basic coding principle of Chinese is motivatedness and that of Indo-European languages is non-motivated conventionality” (Xu 2008: 49). His so-called Chinese motivatedness comes from ideographic characters while phonetic alphabet provides a non-motivated measure of signification for language and that is the foundation of Xu’s linguistic theory of “character standard.” The theory comes from his deep understanding and summary of the tradition of Chinese character signs and reflects his systematic demand of “integrating” the two signification measures. Semiotics: Principles and Problems examines the two signification measures and their interrelation. We find, however, that Zhao Yiheng pays more attention to compromisingly transforming semiotic traditions of Saussure and Peirce by centering on the “theory of meaning”: Zhao constructs his semiotic theoretical system surrounding Peirce’s motivatedness—more specifically, the dualistic complementarity between motivational and structural motivation: the former refers to people’s symbolic motives, such as expressive intention of the sender and interpretive motive of the addressee (it could also be classified as subjective motive and objective motive, rhetorical motive and logical motive, etc.); but the latter belongs to Saussure. Saussure’s principle of arbitrariness rejects people’s intention and motivation, but accepts structural motivation (Saussure names it as “relative verifiability”). In structuralist semiotics, language structural system being the producer of meaning or fundamental basis belongs to “structural motivation” or “the language speaks I.” Zhao Yiheng’s attempt of building up equilibrium with structural motivation dominating the relation between motivational and structural motivation represents his compromising transformation of traditional theories of Peirce and Saussure, which is also the basic trend of Chinese semiotic studies at present and for a certain historical period in the future.

16.3

Semiotics: Principles and Problems

349

16.3.2 Meaning-Based Semiotic Concept Zhao Yiheng’s meaning-based semiotic concept is first and foremost reflected by his definition of sign. The definition of sign should be: the perception believed to be meaningful thus understood (Zhao 2011: 27). “Perception” is the supporting part of sign and it is equivalent to Peirce’s representamen11; “meaning,” meanwhile, is equivalent to Peirce’s interpretant.12 Semiotic: Principles and Problems points out that “the process of meaning production is the process of utilizing signs (such as mental icons) to express an absent object or meaning” (Zhao 2011: 36). “As soon as the interpreter views a perception as signs, it becomes the interpretive object and it has to make sense. Thus interpretive tendency of the interpreter gives signs meaning” (Zhao 2011: 51). As such, Zhao’s “meaning” is both semiotic interpretation of representamen and conceptual expression of semiotic object. Thus, Zhao carries on Peirce’s trialism of representamen, interpretant and object and comprehends meaning of signs in the dynamic process of sensing and interpreting: “Meaning has to be interpreted…once meaning is implemented in interpreting, semiosis comes to an end” (Zhao 2011: 47–48). This theory of meaning coming from dynamic interpretation belongs to, in Li’s words, Peirce’s semiotic tradition of communication theory. But after further deliberation, we find that there are only representamen (perception) and interpretant (meaning) in Zhao’s definition while “object” is absent. In Peirce’s trialism of representamen, interpretant and object, “object” is always present: either directly present (such as tag icons and finger icons which point at some present objects; or road signs which point at some would-be present objects), or indirectly present (such as images and words which point at some real or fictitious objects through pictures or concepts). No matter what, considering all the three elements when they are all present is the essence of Peirce’s pragmatism.13 Pragmatism emphasizes that the meaning of signs comes from the dynamic relationship of representamen, interpretant and object. It seeks how signs produce meaning in object-oriented practical use and dynamic communication process: Signs’ meaning/signified is produced in the process of searching for the object. This process is typically represented by Peirce’s sign or index. “Indexicality means that the meaning and truth value of words alter with the change of speaker and time of speaking” (Chen 2013: 25). Peirce defined demonstrative and personal “The sensible part of sign is named ‘representamen’ by Peirce” (Zhao 2011, 97). Peirce’s definition of sign is: “A sign, or representamen, is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity. It addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for something, it is object. It stands for that object, not in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea”. 13 Peirce points out that “Consider what effects, which might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object” (Tu 2006: 22). 11 12

350

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

pronouns such as “I” and “this” as pure indices, their meaning comes from the actual present relationship among representamen, interpretant and object, which is always changing, and the real reference object is confirmed in that dynamic context relationship. Interpretant (meaning) plays an important part in the process of semiotization because object is confirmed by the interpreter with signs. Interpretant would lead to “infinite interpretation,” but interpreting never signs’ self-revelry according to Peirce, it is to present initiative and complexity of thinking in the process of searching for or reproducing the object. Thus, unlike Zhao Yiheng’s emphasis on subjective motive, Peirce’s interpretant includes people’s subjective motivation, but he lays more emphasis on logical motive and in the end, points to an object beyond oneself. Object is expressed through a logical process and the motivational connection between signs and objects is logical and demonstrable. That’s why Peirce believes that “Logic, in its general sense, is, as I believe I have shown, only another name for semiotics” (Tu 2006: 276). Logic pursues truth value (measurable and objective actual value14) and such semiotics puts “object” in the first place: “When sentence component is replaced by expression with the same reference but different connotation, the truth value of the sentence remains unchanged” (Tu 1988: 10). Thus triadic linguistic philosophy and semiotics belong to Li Youzheng’s so-called logical semantics tradition. Just like representamen, interpretant and object of Peirce; sentence, sense and reference of Frege and symbol, concept and referent of Ogden and Richards, etc., the tradition pursues logic truth value—it aims at the object’s presence in the end. “Object” is not within the definition of signs in Semiotics: Principles and Problems, thus “meaning” becomes the product of object’s temporary absence: it emerges from the absence of object. “Meaning” here is not a result of “object,” but “object” itself. “Meaning” in Semiotics: Principles and Problems comes from the disappearance and fusion of the boundary between interpretant and object. Zhao quotes Chinese philosopher Wang Yangming, “Mind shapes objects” (Zhao 2011: 90). He equals the relationship between Peirce’s object/interpretant with binary relationships such as denotation/connotation (Hjelmslev), myth/meaning (Barthes), literal meaning/contextual meaning (Richards) and Sinn/Bedeutung (Frege) (Zhao 2011: 101–102) and states his interpretative concept of “meaning”: “Semiotics is a study of connotation, namely interpretant” (Zhao 2011: 102). When the research of meaning concentrates on Barthes’ “meaning,” Frege’s “Bedeutung” or Peirce’s “interpretant” rather than “object,” the theoretical passion for “truth value” of signs turns to an exploration toward theories of rhetorical pragmatics. It should be pointed out, though, that this rhetorical pragmatics does not deny the existence or presence of the “object”; it stresses the opposite relation between meaning and object, in other words, the self-denial of presence and object: object would lose meaning when present. Zhao quotes Jim Miller as follows: “As a

I name this truth value “substantial correlation,” and the distinction of semantic object, conceptual object, actual object and present object shows the increase and decrease of this correlation (Meng 2014: 27–29).

14

16.3

Semiotics: Principles and Problems

351

signpost functions by saying the thing it names is somewhere else, over there, absent…”And if the thing is present, meaning is lost, “Signpost is not necessary anymore” (Zhao 2011: 48). Meaning comes from the delay of object’s presence rather than object’s reappearance and this leads to three results: one, everyone with the ability of interpreting gets discourse power of semiotics; two, anything that could possess interpretive meaning by making a distance from presence would become a semiotic object; and three, semiotic research does not proceed from the necessity of representing structural system (Saussure’s tradition), nor does it come from the necessity of representation of truth-value relation (Peirce’s tradition)—it becomes an anti-systemic, meaning-based semiotics which is based on interpreter’s motivation. This meaning-based semiotics featuring rhetorical pragmatics helps to lower academic threshold to make semiotics popular and it also helps to break the boundary of semiotics to make it an academic platform for all humanities to search for meaning. As a result, semiotics opens itself to the whole society: everyone is a semiotician while everyone is not a semiotician. Meaning theory represented by phenomenology or Peirce’s semiotics takes meaning as ways, or intention mode of constructing objects. Perceptual, imaginary, iconic, verbal and propositional are all ways of intentional objects, and in semiotics it is called mode of intention. Viewing meaning as mode of intention is actually acknowledging that the signified, object, reality, noumenon, logos, etc., are constructed by signs and are the aim of signs. Mode of intention delimits objects with different meanings according to correlation and verifiable degree of different objects. Traditional Chinese theory of meaning emphasizes more on “mind shapes objects,” so object is integrated into people’s motivational intention. Zhao’s theory of meaning has this neutral feature of integration of traditional Chinese philosophy as well.

16.3.3 “Neutral” Concept Driven by Motivational Motivation and Structural Motivation If Li Youzheng’s and Wang Mingyu’s works are academic masterpieces, Zhao Yiheng’s work is across all kinds of knowledge and discourse east and west, past and present. It also involves both theoretical exploration and signification practice of semiotics as well as a distinct feature of originality, localization and operability, and it makes semiotics more readable, interesting and experiential. “Dialogic” is also a feature of Zhao’s writing: when he discusses a viewpoint, he would point out several other viewpoints to make comparison and then come up with his own—it is more persuasive and academically attractive than writing monologically. Zhao’s semiotics gives infinite possibilities to all phenomena centering on meaning rather than systematic necessity. It shows clearly a “neutral” theoretical tendency that resists the binary opposition.

352

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

There are two parts in Semiotics: Principles and Problems: Part I: Principles and Part II: Problems. We will discuss Zhao’s “meaning-based” semiotic concept mostly on the basis of Part I. Part I comprises ten chapters, in which Chap. 1: Composition of Signs and Chap. 2: Semiosis, Incomplete Signs explain his definition of signs and his meaning-based semiotic concept centering on dynamic interpretation. Chapter 1: Composition of Signs focuses on the semiotization of entities, considering any entity with meaning is a sign. This is a new progress made in Chinese semiotic studies because former researches concentrated basically on “intentional” signs such as language, image and ritual rather than on “physical signs”—semiotic research of entities. Of course, this “meaning” of entities is still the result of linguistic interpretation rather than the meaning of “observing thing as itself.” Zhao believes that the process of semiotization of entities is “the process of endowing perception with meaning, normally called ‘representation’ … Stuart Hall interpreted the function of representation very concisely: ‘If you put down a glass you are holding and walk out of the room, you can still think about the glass, even though it is no longer physically there.’ This is representation inside our mind: the process of meaning production is to express an absent object or meaning with signs (such as mental icon)” (Zhao 2011: 36). That is to say, the essence of “semiotization” is the process of representing entities with surrogate signs when entities are absent: “Presentation of one tree is not meaning, nor does it lead to meaning. Only when it is transformed into discourse, picture, sculpture, words, or when it is within the experience of interpreters, that tree possesses meanings such as ‘nature’, ‘vitality’, etc. Semiotization could transform presentation to representation with meaning and then entities become signs” (Zhao 2011: 36). Here, Zhao refers to two kinds of semiotization of entities: one is representing the absent entity with signs (such as images or words); the other is introducing the interpretation of a present entity—in other words, considering the present entity (such as a tree) as a perception with meaning, “when it is within the experience of interpreters, it possesses meanings such as ‘nature’, ‘vitality’, etc.” Apparently, he emphasizes that only “within the experience of interpreters” does a present entity produce meaning. As “object” is not in his theory of meaning, another condition in entity-name relation is excluded: when the present entity could refer to itself without being related with “experience of interpreters.” This is called notational entity-name relation: “In an entity-name relation, when an entity defines or differentiates itself from others with the help of explanation or identification of words or discourses, such entity becomes notational signifier and the sign or index (such as words or discourses) becomes metalanguage or signified. For example, when we see a real apple, the word ‘apple’ occurs to us immediately and the entity ‘apple’ becomes notational signifier” (Meng 2014: 355). In a notational entity-name relation, every present entity with a name becomes a sign, and it has nothing to do with the experience of interpreters. All present entities have present and absent symbolic relations. Notational entity-name relation stresses firstly on the presence of entity and then its name. Meaning-based entity-name relation gains meaning of entity through people’s

16.3

Semiotics: Principles and Problems

353

interpretation and words. In this process, entity’s presence is suppressed in interpretation even though it is present and thus entity becomes an object of interpretation. Thus, the meaning is realized by delaying entity’s presence. As for the entities excluded from the “experience of interpreters,” Zhao concludes them as natural objects with utility only and they “do not express meaning” (Zhao 2011: 28–29). This idea seems to be similar to Barthes’s theory on entity and sign: Roland Barthes differentiated two concepts of “utility” and “functional signs,”15 and there seems to be a natural and utilitarian umbrella first and then “waterproof and damp proof” appears as the function of signs. Meng Hua believes that both functional object and utilizing object belong to semiotic phenomenon—while being functional they also “express” something: like its own name, which then could be named as “physical sign.” He believes that there is no utilizing object that is pure natural—everything is a physical sign with no exception, and there is only a difference of symbolic physical signs and explanatory physical signs.16 Pure natural object described by Zhao Yiheng belongs to “symbolic physical signs”17considered by Meng Hua. In Zhao’s meaning-based semiotics of physical signs, the object is the signified of language and sign; those that do not become interpretive objects are non-meaning natural objects. But for “symbolic physical signs,” everything has its own appellation; the so-called natural object itself becomes signifier, thus explanatory language is only the content or signified (interpretive metalanguage). The concept of “symbolic physical signs” has the theoretical perspective of physical signs greatly changed: Objects are not passively dominated by language, rather, they are proactive meaning-producing mechanism and producers that meaningfully affect human beings (Meng 2014: 348).

In meaning-based semiotics of physical signs, the meaning of physical signs mainly comes from interpretation by people; while for symbolic physical signs, meaning comes from the object itself. In meaning-based semiotic concept resulted from the absence of “object,” meaning of signs are expressed as intentional meaning (of the sender), textual meaning (of the sign itself) and interpreted meaning (of the addressee) (Zhao 2011: 50). The first one, “intentional meaning,” is replaced by the latter two when the author is dead or unknown, “because the intentional meaning is untraceable and text is the “The function becomes pervaded with meaning. This semantization is inevitable: as soon as there is a society, every usage is converted into a sign of itself; the use of a raincoat is to give protection from the rain, but this use cannot be dissociated from the very signs of an atmospheric situation” (Barthes 1999: 32). 16 Symbolic physical sign is the physical sign of entity-name relation, “it is the co-presence of word and object and word becomes the signified or defining metalanguage of the object, the leading code is physical sign rather than word”; Explanatory physical sign is the physical sign of name-entity relation, “it is the co-presence of word but word becomes lead or signifier and object is referred to or becomes signified. Object is written or encoded by word” (Meng 2014: 353). 17 Symbolic physical sign means “entity becomes signifier of all kinds of signs” rather than signified (Meng 2014: 355). 15

354

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

basis of interpreting” (Zhao 2011: 51). Zhao differentiates author’s intention and addresser’s intention according to Western literary theories (Zhao 2011: 58): the former is meaning with the author’s expressive intention; the latter is without that certain expressive intention but signs carry the addresser’s intention. Such differentiation leads to one theoretical effect: the research scope of semiotics is expanded from pure expression sphere to interpretation of everything. When people do things, they do with intentions, but such “intentions” are not always out of any expressing aim. While doing something intentional, people “speak of” something unintentionally. For example, if someone is reading a newspaper, he is also expressing unintentionally that he is “in a leisure state.” Doing something while producing meaning is called unintentional expression. Zhao’s concern of hermeneutics with unintentional expression expands his semiotic research object scope to all fields— entitative, behavioral, artificial and natural—whose meaning comes basically from interpretation by the addressee. This is one notable difference from semiotic theory of Zhao to that of Li Youzheng and Wang Mingyu. The latter two tilt their research to “intentional” language semiotic research while Zhao follows Peirce and expands his semiotic research field to non-linguistic semiotics—where there is meaning to be interpreted, but not all belong to intentional significant signs. The second one, textual meaning, belongs to structural semiotics. Meaning of signs does not primarily come from interpretative signification relation between representation and object; it comes from the operation of semiotic system itself, or the “structural motivation” from above. What differs Zhao’s theory from Peirce’s is the construction involving text or structural motivation, which is also a reflection of Zhao’s reliance on Saussure’s tradition. The third one, interpreted meaning, is the ultimate implementer of meaning of signs. “‘Meaning’ in this book, if not qualified, refers to the implement of meaning, that is, interpreted meaning,” in other words, meaning of any signs, in the end, is interpreted meaning and conducted by interpretive motive (Zhao 2011: 51). It reflects Zhao’s semiotic position of interpretation standard. By analyzing the meaning-based semiotic concept in Semiotics: Principles and Problems, we find Zhao’s compromising position between Peirce and Saussure. On one side he turns to Peirce’s semiotic theories of processing and motivation, which aims at building up motivated relations among addresser, addressee, medium, object and other elements in the dynamic process of semiotization. The motivated relations include: objective motivation/logical motivation (meaning comes from demonstrable or truth-value relation between signs and real objects), motivational motivation (meaning comes from intention of sender or addressee) and structural motivation (meaning mainly comes from semiotic system itself). Peirce’s semiotic theory gives consideration to multiple motivations but the leading role belongs to logical motivation. But in Semiotics: Principles and Problems, the leading role goes to the study of motivational motivation and structural motivation. Let’s discuss motivational motivation first. Zhao names motivatedness from sender as “intentional point”: “In this book, the ideal stopping point in sender’s intention to expect interpretation is called ‘intentional point’” (Zhao 2011: 183). If most audiences of a successful advertisement could react like what the advertising

16.3

Semiotics: Principles and Problems

355

company has expected, the advertisement, therefore, reaches the “intentional point.” As for the addressee’s intention, it basically comes from Peirce’s concept of “infinite semiosis” on interpretant. In Zhao’s explanation: “To interpret meaning, another sign is needed…and the sign’s signification would lead to another interpretant and this would be going on continually, thus a sign’s meaning is infinite” (Zhao 2011: 104). Out of this, the interpreter’s intention appears to be like “open posture of post-structuralism: sign’s signification is definitely indefinite semiosis” (Zhao 2011: 104). Interpreter’s “indefinite semiosis” intention (in Zhao’s words, “result of the interaction between personal consciousness and culture approaches”) is the main reason why signs are given meanings. “Interpretation could ‘semiotize’ everything to different degrees. I am thirsty so I drink water. There is no semiotic meaning here, just my reaction to physical demands. I drink tea out of no reason, but if there is someone observing me, he may find meaning through me drinking tea: students may think I’m too tired from teaching; those who care about me may think I’m thirsty because of exhaustion; colleagues know I’m thinking about my theories; police officers may think I’m anxious out of guilty and my countrymen may guess I drink tea because I’m homesick” (Zhao 2011: 36). From this example, we may find that “drinking tea” is an act with no expressive intention but certain practical intention. While doing something, the sender “talks about” his intention or some psychological state unintentionally. In other words, there is a causal indexical relationship between such act and some non-expressive intention. This act belongs to Peirce’s index. But Peirce stressed the logical motivation of which index has causality. Despite multiple interpretations of index, the ultimate goal of logical motivation is to create a truth-value relationship between representamen and object: approaching (perhaps never achieving) the object or truth progressively through all kinds of interpretation. In Zhao Yiheng’s another work, he mentions: “Semiotics does not solve the problem of relation between index and icon…nor does it solve the problem of relation between image and entity,” as a result, “‘index’ and ‘icon’ are not in the research field of semiotics” (Zhao 2004: 11). It seems to be arbitrary, but he makes it clear his meaning-based standpoint: semiotics cannot solve the problem of truth-reflecting relation (“objectively corresponding and physically transparent” relation) between signs and objects; “Such natural relation between objects and signs could only be included into the semiotic domain after it is interpreted” (Hu 2014: 5). After suspending object, the meaning of signs comes from interpretation, which is not based on logical motivation directed to object, but “the partialized collection of perceptible quality related to reception…temporary collection of some perceptions related to ‘type of attention’” (Zhao 2011: 38). Apparently, this “type of attention” is the interpretive intention of interpreter’s “indefinite semiosis,” and it sets up the meaning of signs centering on selective attention and cultural habits of interpreters rather than objects. This is the fundamental difference between motivational motivation and logical motivation. The stress on motivational motivation, interpretant or meaning gives Zhao’s meaning-based semiotics the feature of rhetoric pragmatics (different from Peirce’s logical pragmatism), which reflects his spiritual connection with Chinese cultural signs.

356

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

In the Chinese traditional semiotic concept of “mind shapes objects,” meaning comes from the absence of objects (including the meaning-acquiring of present objects). Because of such absence, signs in Zhou Yi (the core of the I Ching, an ancient Chinese divination text and the oldest of the Chinese classics) are used to solve doubts rather than testifying, Chinese characters are used to indicate meanings rather than sounds, and logic is used to “clear names” (signs’ specification to reality) rather than logical cognition. In Chinese traditional semiotics, meaning and object are not sharply differentiated, and meanings always come with objects and vice versa: we think about meanings with the help of the presence of objects and vice versa, thus the dualistic distinction between meanings (or words) and objects is neutralized. There are two modes of neutralization in many semiotic dualistic relations (signifier and signified; meaning and object; form and entity). One is the A-B moderating mode: “The two become one integrated whole with heterogeneity, criticality and tension of decentration disappearing. The disappearance of sense of confrontation makes both sides drawing into the middle.” The idea of “mind shapes objects” in traditional Chinese semiotics follows this mode. The other is the A-B decentrating mode: the two keep a clear boundary and “transfer to the other in the process of self-denial and keep to itself in the process of transferring to the other. Every transfer keeps double consciousness from the two parties” (Meng 2014: 424). Peirce’s semiotic theories and phenomenology follow this mode: firstly they divide interpretant (meaning) with object very clearly and then observe the tensional relationship between presentation/enrichment (presence) and representation/vacuity (absence) of two parities.18 The “neutralization” analogous to traditional Chinese semiotics is featured in phenomenology in that vacuity is the transitional object from presence to absence and that enrichment is the transitional object from absence to presence; however, this neutralized transition happens only when the boundary is clear: the division between dualistic relations like word and object, presence and absence, enrichment and vacuity. In traditional Chinese neutralized semiotic concept of “moderation,” the boundary between word and object, presence and absence is faint and lacks of the tension of division. With its emphasis on motivational motivation (including intentional motivation of the sender and interpretive motivation of the addressee), Semiotics: Principles and Problems pays attention to all kinds of meaning-producing activities that center on linguistic signs. Here are some examples: the “infinite semiosis” discussed in Chap. 4: Components of Semiosis; the relationship between context and interpretation mainly elaborated in Chap. 88: Interpretation of Sign; rhetorical modes of meanings such as conceptual metaphor, symbolism and irony, are introduced in Chap. 9: Semiotic Rhetoric. The above examples all aim at setting up some motivational semantic motivation, in other words, at viewing the meaning world constructed by people with language strategies as the boarding place of meaning of Presence and absence are the objective correlates to filled and empty intentions. An empty intention is an intention that targets something that is not there, something absent, something not present to the one who intends. A filled intention is one that targets something that is there, in its bodily presence, before the one who intends. (Sokolowski 2009: 33).

18

16.3

Semiotics: Principles and Problems

357

semiotics. As a result, we take this motivational motivation as semantic motivation constructed by language. If motivational motivation proposed by Zhao Yiheng is a creative reconstruction (taking phenomenology, Cassirer’s, Barthes’ and other semiotic theories as references) of Peirce’s “interpretant,” the structural motivation in the meaningproducing mechanism of Semiotics: Principles and Problems, then, comes from Saussure’s formalism. Structural motivation basically means “textual meaning”— regulations and usages of the sign system. The study on structural motivation centering on linguistic signs is the most important achievement of structural semiotics. Chapter 6: Co-text, Chap. 7: Coordination of Two Axes and Chap. 10: Code and Metalanguage in Zhao’s Semiotics: Principles and Problems deeply explore the influence and constraint that textual meaning or structural motivation have on the interpretation of meaning of signs separately from perspectives of intertextuality, syntagmatic and paradigmatic relation and metalanguage (the interpretation of deep coding and its laws of object language). Motivational semantic motivation engenders intentional meaning and interpretive meaning while structural motivation engenders textual meaning. While absorbing and transforming Peirce’s dynamic semiotic concept of motivation, Zhao also combines Saussure’s traditional structural motivation to his semiotic theories and thus his theories carry an obviously neutral feature.

16.3.4 Summary Zhao Yiheng’s Semiotics: Principles and Problems has the following theoretical features: (1) Zhao holds “neutralized” semiotic tradition of both Peirce and Saussure thus constructs his meaning-based semiotic concept in which “meaning”-motivated explanation holds dominance. It absorbs Peirce’s theory that meaning comes from the interpretation and inherits Saussure’s standpoint that meaning comes from the absence of object. As a result, Zhao’s meaning-based semiotic concept has a distinct rhetoric pragmatic feature and somehow conforms spiritually to the traditional Chinese culture. (2) It is generally acknowledged that Saussure’s semiotic theories focus on intentional signs (language and artificial signs) while Peirce’s semiotic theories focus on signs with no expressive intention (natural traces, unintentional expressive and communicative behaviors, entity signs, etc.) The above two kinds of signs compose the basic domain of discourse of semiotics and they have the binary complementarity of linguistic signs and non-linguistic signs, system and anti-system. The biggest originality of Zhao’s semiotic theories is that he leads his study to cultural interpretation and cultural creativity: He attaches the same importance to both unintentional, non-systematic signs and intentional, systematic signs;

358

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

his theory has a non-linguistic sign and anti-structural feature to some extent. As a result, Zhao’s research emphasis of semiotics is not on constructing a sign system, but on the creative interpreting and applying in signifying practices of semiotic core categories and non-linguistic signs, on keen grasp and timely intervention of social culture hot spots from the standpoint of semiotics, and on integrating the humanities based on the platform of semiotics. (3) Zhao’s unique meaning-based semiotic research lowers the threshold and opens the border of semiotics. It has a distinct tendency of “pan-semiotism”: meaning phenomena of all kinds of social and culture affairs are solved and interpreted by semiotic theories. It avoids ideological criticism of “all or nothing” of semiotics and theoretical impulse of truth-seeking and focuses on creative and interpretive activities of cultural affairs. This tendency greatly adapts to the “pragmatic reason” advocated by current Chinese social reality and cultural context. Thus, the Institute of Semiotics-Media Studies of Sichuan University led by Zhao Yiheng has attracted enthusiasts for semiotics and young students of the humanities and become the most vibrant research institute of semiotics among all in China. (4) Zhao’s semiotic concept has a neutral feature of anti-systematic postmodernism, pan-semiotism and Chinese traditional concept of “mind shapes objects.” It seems to have proved the statement of academia that postmodernism has a feature of “orientalism” and this postmodern semiotic concept with orientalism is exerting a bigger and bigger impact on the Chinese academia.

16.4

Basic Issues in the Development of Modern Chinese Semiotics

Through sorting out the contents of the above sections, five basic issues of modern Chinese semiotics are summarized in this section.

16.4.1 Neutralization of Traditional Chinese Signs “Neutrality,” as the “intermediate state or digestion mode of binaries,” is both a “sign mode” that shows the structural characteristics of sign ontology and a “sign view” expressed as a theoretical standpoint. ① The centripetal neutralization is an important feature of Chinese traditional semiotics. Both I Ching signs and Chinese character signs contain a semiotic principle of medium neutralization: A sign can only express itself in mutual integration and complementation when its boundary with other signs disappears, thus resulting in

16.4

Basic Issues in the Development of Modern Chinese Semiotics

359

an iconographic semiotic idea of interaction between words, texts and images. The six categories of Chinese characters, for example, also contain a profound thought of neutral signs: Chinese characters are operated according to the principle of iconicity, which combines the two expression mechanisms of pictograph (pictographic and ideographic) and phonograph (phonetic and symbolic). The pictophonetic character embodies that the nature of neutral sign that neutralizes and blends the two seemingly opposite poles and that the Chinese character implies a relational field of extra-linguistic signs consisting of words, texts and images. ② The centripetal “neutral” thought of Chinese traditional semiotics is mainly manifested in the symbolic thought of “iconicity.” Iconicity is manifested in three aspects: • The super-symbolism of signifier is mainly manifested in the wandering and transitional nature of Zhou Yi and Chinese character signs between words, texts and images. Whether hexagrams and trigrams or pictograph, they have the super-symbolic nature of words (hexagram names or pronunciation), texts (ideographs) and images (pictures). • The super-symbolism of signified refers to the process where various boundaries of symbolic signified disappear fall into a certain naturally formed state. Although the logic-oriented theory of names and argumentation has made a hierarchical analysis of the signified of names and has sprouted the idea of a mind-shifting “signified domain,” “materialized intention” is still the mainstream of Chinese traditional semiotics. The signified is the product of figurative thinking, the materialization of ideas and the conceptual blending of things. This naturally formed state of meaning and matter is called “the domain of centripetal signified,” which rejects the pure logical analysis of symbolic signified, and is neither a single concept nor a pure reality or presence, but a naturally formed image. It is a typical pattern referred to by Chinese traditional signs, and for the Chinese Han nationality, it is also the deep coding principle of the pragmatic theory of truth. • Iconicity of signification is analyzed from the combination of dynamic signifier and signified of signs. Iconicity is “a symbolic means of projecting (conceptual) pictures or visual metaphors onto (visible) concepts,” or a way of producing the centripetal signified from the super-symbolic signifier.

16.4.2 The Neutralization Trend of Modern Semiotic Studies in China After experiencing the “polar” (binary opposition) development in the initial stage, modern semiotic studies in China has entered a stage of “neutral” theories, which refers to taking a middle position in such binaries as linguistic and non-linguistic signs, form and substance, system and process, Saussure and Peirce and focusing

360

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

more on various new theories, visions and fields that arises in the dissolving of these oppositions. Especially in dealing with the relations between Saussure’s and Peirce’s traditions, Wang Mingyu’s “eclectic approach” and Zhao Yiheng’s “Meaning View” both show distinctive features of neutralization, which indicates the direction of modern semiotic studies in China. To differentiate between traditional and modern neutral views and to distinguish among the neutral views of different scholars could certainly be a significant academic topic. The centripetal neutralization and figurative principle of Chinese traditional semiotics, in particular, have given global semiotic studies a unique symbolic signification mode. It is compatible with various signs such as words, texts and images that have emerged in the age of Internet Plus and is somehow similar to the postmodern symbolic culture that integrates images and concepts, watching and reading. Such is the charm that ensures traditional Chinese semiotics to go global. The trend of neutralization in the semiotic studies in China has made the studies of “super-sign” a mainstream. The so-called super-sign includes three meanings: First, it refers to the neutral study that is beyond the boundaries between linguistic, lexical and syntactic units and verbal communication units (such as a naming, proposition or textual unit). Second, it refers to the neutral study that surpasses the boundaries between natural language and non-linguistic signs. For example, apart from the study of linguistic signs, the study also pays attention to various non-linguistic signs, as well as artificial signs with communication intention, and behavior and object signs without communication intention. The third meaning refers to transcending the boundaries between form and substance (or entity), and signs generally own dual attributes of both, that is, whether signifier or signified, it involves a motivational relevance domain of a substance or an entity. The study on the materiality of semiotics focuses on the influence of the signifier materiality and the signified materiality on the meaning of signs. For example, if a physical layer-by-layer relationship exists among the semantic objects, conceptual objects, realistic objects and present objects in the relevance domain of the signified substance (entity), the more it moves toward the entity, the stronger its motivation is, and the weaker its formalization is, and vice versa. A layer-by-layer construction of the symbolic meaning on the signifier material exists in the relevance domain of the signifier substance (entity); for example, the superposition of various material means such as spoken languages, writings and images has a certain impact on the signification. The closer to the motivation of image means, the stronger the materiality is. The closer to the language conventionality, the stronger the formalization characteristics are. The three features of “super-sign” involve the dissolution of the binary oppositions between langue and parole, linguistic and non-linguistic signs, formality and materiality, that is, the tendency to “neutralize” the two. Traditional semiotics strictly abides by the boundaries between them. For example, while Saussure’s tradition emphasizes more on formalization studies, Peirce’s tradition focuses more on entity studies. Modern Chinese semiotic studies, however, has gradually adopted

16.4

Basic Issues in the Development of Modern Chinese Semiotics

361

a neutral view of “super-sign,” which refers to the study of each element in the complementary, interdependent and interrelated relationship between these binary oppositions. Wang Mingyu’s studies focus on the super-symbolic neutral studies on langue/parole and formality/substantiality, whereas Zhao Yiheng’s studies show a super-symbolic tendency of neutralizing the linguistic and non-linguistic signs.

16.4.3 Re-understanding Saussure Remains an Important Subject of Chinese Semiotics The most fundamental problem of semiotics neutralization is to eliminate the oppositions between substance and form, system and process, linguistic and non-linguistic signs, especially the interest in the materiality of sign. For example, both Wang Mingyu and Zhao Yiheng have recognized the materiality of sign in their definitions of sign. It is shown that despite his preference for formal structuralism, Saussure, together with Hjelmslev after him, regarded the binaries above as the opposites in his overall language or overall symbolic framework; therefore, Saussure was in some sense the founder of the “neutral” sign concept. Besides his langue and parole, there is a middle term, group language, which includes the first two terms. Saussure dealt with neutrality like he was lingering at the crossroads, entangling between langue and parole, internal and external linguistics, synchronic and diachronic, form and substance. While Peirce is not compatible with Saussure, Saussure’s tradition leaves an interface for the compatibility with Peirce. The reinterpretation of neutralized Saussure who established a dialogic relationship with Peirce or the handling of the tension between “polarity” and “neutrality” is a critical issue facing the further development of modern semiotics in China.

16.4.4 Relationship Between Chinese and Western Semiotic Theories: From Monologue to Dialogue Chinese semiotics has long been in a state of “dividing and conquering” or “monologue” when dealing with various theories; for example, the incommensurability between Saussure and Peirce, and the isolation between Western and Chinese traditional semiotic discourse. At present, the research trend is not only to communicate equally between Saussure and Peirce, but also to advance a dialogue between Chinese and Western semiotic discourse, so that the spirit of Chinese traditional semiotics can be a shared wealth for the world, and China’s own semiotic theory can be constructed in the dialogue between China and the West, which has already become a consensus

362

16

Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies

among Chinese semioticians. The three authors mentioned above are also keenly aware of this. Li Youzheng added a fifth part to the new edition of Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics, aiming to launch a dialogue between Chinese and Western semiotics. This chapter, “Sememe structure of Chinese abstract words,” tries to connect the logical semantic tradition of Western semiotics with the “pragmatic semantic tradition” (Li 2007: 747) of Chinese traditional semiotics. Zhao Yiheng, together with his team, established a themed study on “Chinese Semiotics Heritage,” which includes the research on Chinese character semiotics, I Ching semiotics, Mohism and Logicians semiotics, Confucius and Mencius semiotics, Laozi and Zhuangzi semiotics and the semiotics of The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragon (Tang and Zhu 2012). “Wang Mingyu said that the origin of Chinese symbols is relatively early, such as the “Li Xiang Jin Yi” (literally, exhausting meaning through images) theory in Xici Zhuan (Appended Commentary to the Book of Changes), the “name” theory in Gongsun Long’s On Name and Nature, the exploration on the motivation of linguistic signs in Shuowen Jiezi (literally, Explaining Graphs and Analyzing Characters) and the understanding on the users of linguistic signs in The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragon, which all reflect simple and plain thoughts of semiotics …” (Hao and Zeng 2014: 02, 17). In his article, The Semiotic Spheres and Academic Philosophy of Chinese Semiotics, Wang Mingyu sorted out the academic resources of Chinese semiotics, and 13 research fields are listed: I Ching semiotics, semiotics of Logicians, semiotics of Exegetics, semiotics of Chinese character, semiotics of The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragon, semiotics of Buddhist philosophy, semiotics of divination, semiotics of allusion, semiotics of classical literature, semiotics of art, phonological semiotics, human semiotics, Marxist semiotics (Wang 2016: 64–66). It can be noted that a wave of Chinese semiotics studies is forthcoming. The direction where the Chinese semiotics has to go is integration, communication and dialogue between Western semiotics and Chinese traditional semiotics, on the basis of which semiotics theories with Chinese characteristics will be established. As far as the concrete research object of Chinese traditional semiotics is concerned, we still insist on the prediction made in 2004: “we firmly believe that Chinese academic research will face a Chinese character study turn in this century” (Meng 2004: introduction), and Chinese character semiotics is the most worthy of expectation. Chinese character semiotics is a study of “how Chinese characters think” on the basis of cultural comparison and dialogue with Latin alphabet symbols: it mainly refers to the use of Chinese character signs as a tool of knowledge, how its own system of meaning and ways of meaning become the basis, premise and background of knowledge, and how its own means of meaning play a covert dominant role in the constitution of knowledge and a constructive function of culture, and the “super-sign” of the Chinese characters and its dominant position in the various cultural signs of China. In particular, the “figurative thinking” of the Chinese character “Six Writings,” will probably become another important signifying principle between Saussure’s arbitrariness principle and Peirce’s principle of motivation, and the study on it is of global significance. However, the semiotic studies of Chinese characters does not necessarily make the figurative thinking of

16.4

Basic Issues in the Development of Modern Chinese Semiotics

363

Chinese characters cosmopolitan, and its world significance can only be derived from its communication and dialogue with Saussure’s arbitrariness principle and Peirce’s motivation principle.

16.4.5 Shift from Pure Theory Research to the Combination of Signification Theory and Signification Practice In contrast, the semiotic school of language, represented by Li Youzheng and Wang Mingyu, pays more attention to the construction of the semiotic theoretical system and the exploration of signification theory, while Zhao Yiheng’s semiotic theory of meaning represents the trend of Chinese semiotics toward the practice and application of signification. Under the leadership of Zhao Yiheng, Sichuan University has formed a “Western China School” with strong tendency of rhetorical pragmatics and pan-semiotics, such as industrial semiotics (the semiotic study of communication, advertising, games and branding), cultural and social semiotics (the semiotic study of sports, fashion, celebrities, ethnic groups, sense of happiness), literary and artistic semiotics (the semiotic study of film, poetry, images, pop songs and network literature) are included in the scope of studies of the school.19 Strictly speaking, semiotics practice is not equal to semiotic application. Studies of signification practice in semiotics involve two major themes: cultural construction and cultural criticism. The theme of cultural criticism, such as Barthes’s mythology, Kristeva’s feminism and Foucault’s power discourse, is not as mainstream as the theme of cultural construction in the Chinese context. Therefore, it means that the relative weakness of cultural criticism and one-dimension reflection in signification practice studies have also affected, to a certain extent, the originality of Chinese semiotics theory and the effectiveness of its application.

See Semiotic Fields edited by Tang Xiaolin (唐小林)& Zhu Dong (祝东), Sichaun University Press, 2012. 19

Chapter 17

The Historical Mission of Chinese Semiotics

The world’s semiotics community has long acknowledged France, the USA and Russia as three epicenters for semiotics studies. France is known as the cradle of semiotics studies, where the École de Paris represented by Roland Barthes and Algirdas Greimas contributed significantly to the origin and development of semiotics. American semiotics originated from Charles S. Peirce’s studies of signs, and its representative approaches include, among others, Roman Jakobson’s linguistic semiotics-oriented poetics as well as Thomas Sebeok’s biology-oriented semiotics. Russia is the most distinctive country as regards modern structural linguistics and semiotics movement. The Moscow-Tartu School of semiotics, represented by Yuri Lotman, is considered as a perfect combination of traditional humanistic spirit of Russia and modern scientific ideas. China has a tradition of semiotic thinking. In response to the prospects of semiotics studies around the world, how should China with its deep-rooted traditional culture and unique semiotic resources, integrate itself with the world as a powerhouse in semiotics studies? How can it gain its access to the academic discourse of semiotics? What should it do to establish a school of semiotics studies featuring Chinese characteristics and to contribute to the world’s semiotics studies? These questions, which concern not only the process and progress of semiotics studies in China but the historic mission of Chinese semiotics as well, still remain to be answered. And we hold that generally, these questions can be approached from two perspectives—the semiotic spheres and the academic philosophy of Chinese semiotics.

Formerly issued in Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University (2016(1): 64–66) with the title of “The Semiotic Spheres and Academic Philosophy of Chinese Semiotics” (“中国符号学的理 论依归和学术精神”), which was modified by the author in this chapter. © Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_17

365

366

17.1

17

The Historical Mission of Chinese Semiotics

The Semiotic Spheres of Chinese Semiotics

1. I Ching semiotics. From the Ho Tu [The River Map] and the Lo Shu [The Luo Scroll], two legendary diagrams that represent the oldest Chinese mathematical and divinatory traditions, to the world-renowned I Ching [The Book of Changes] in the Western Zhou Period (c.1000–750 BC), and especially the hierarchal spectrum of signs in this divination text, which embodies the ideas of image semiotics, China’s I Ching divination constitutes in its own right a complete history of I Ching Semiotics. 2. Onomatological semiotics. Chinese onomatology is a unique ancient theory that studies the significance of proper names. The “rectification of names” advocated by Confucius and Mencius, the distinguishing between “name and nature” and between “name and meaning” in Taoist tradition, the hypotheses of “name and nature” and “name and symbol” in Mohist classics as well as the philosophy of rituals of the Legalist School of Thought all fall into the category of onomatological semiotics. 3. Exegetic semiotics. While semiotics is generally accepted as a science of signs and meaning making, Chinese exegetics, which originated in the Spring and Autumn Period (770–476 BC), thrived in the East and West Han Dynasties (202 BC–220 AD), transformed itself in the Northern and Southern Song Dynasties (960–1279) and reached its prime in the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and Modern Times (1840–1949), is recognized as a science of signs and meaning making with particular Chinese styles and characteristics. The theory of meaning in Chinese exegetics, which attempts to explain the meaning of a word by analyzing its form or sound, or simply with another word or a string of words, constitutes a typical semiotic model that represents relations of signification. 4. Chinese-character semiotics. The Chinese character is the basic constituent unit of the Chinese cultural ideology. The “analytical approach” to Chinese characters, represented by Shuowen Jiezi, a dictionary of Chinese characters compiled by Xu Shen, a Han Dynasty scholar, and centered on Liu Shu [literally, the Six Categories of Chinese Characters], a categorization method prevailing in the Han Dynasty, is of supreme importance both in the Chinese cultural spectrum and in the world’s history of semiotics as well. Nowadays, the unique semiotic way of thinking and philosophical world outlook embodied in Chinese characters, serving as important ideological resources for rethinking and criticizing Western logocentrism, have aroused great attention of the Western academic community, and it is high time for Chinese-character semiotics to gain its footing on the world’s academic stage. 5. Wenxin Diaolong semiotics. Wenxin Diaolong [literally, The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons] is China’s first work of aesthetics and first comprehensive work of literary criticism. Its author, Liu Xie gave a systematic “semiotic” investigation of Chinese literature from the Pre-Qin Times (c.2100– 221 BC) to the Southern Dynasties (420–589), or in other words, established a

17.1

6.

7.

8.

9.

1

The Semiotic Spheres of Chinese Semiotics

367

semiotic system of discourse in ancient literary criticism. The semiotic features of Wenxin Diaolong are mainly represented by the hierarchies of the overall narrative structure and the “meaning interpretation” of categorized description. The book is clearly laid out and rich in cultural signs, indicating the influence of an era of literary self-awareness and symbolizing the identity of hermeneutic literature (Zhang 2012: 100).1 Buddhist-philosophy semiotics. This mainly refers to Yin-min (Hetuvidya) and Wei-shih (Vijnanavada). Yin-min, originating from ancient India’s elocution practice, is a term in Buddhist logic, which consists of 16 doctrines regarding understanding and reasoning; Wei-shih, or the Consciousness-Only School of Chinese Buddhism, finds its origin from Indian Buddhism, and the “consciousness-only” ideas are recognized as the fundamental theories of Yogacara, a school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism. Yin-min and Wei-shih, both focusing on the study of religious practice though, shed light on language and signs and claim that they are related to human cognitive behavior and even produce the human world of meaning. Divination-based semiotics. The ancient Chinese art of divination remains an exceptionally unique and charismatic part of Chinese culture. Based on Chinese calendrical astrology and Chinese metaphysics, Chinese divination is dedicated to explaining universal phenomena, forecasting events, telling one’s fortune or determining auspicious sites. It encompasses many different forms such as Dun Jia and Liu Ren, two highest forms, Mei Hua and Liu Yao, two most accessible forms, as well as Feng Shui, Gui Bu and Zi Wei, each having a system of signs to signify meaning. Allusion-based semiotics. Chinese culture embraces more ancient than modern traditions, and writers are inclined to cite ancient scholars and anecdotes to make their arguments more convincing. Compared with any other cultural or literary phenomenon, allusion plays a critical role in ancient Chinese literature. And we might even say that Chinese linguistics is derived and developed from Chinese allusions. Ancient Chinese authors would use allusions with a view to expressing the most profound meanings in the fewest words possible—a principle that coincides with semiotics and highlights image, symbol and, more importantly, intertextuality. Classical-literature semiotics. Unlike modern Chinese literature whose major concepts trace their origins from Europe and America, classical Chinese literature, as the quintessence of Chinese culture, covers all cultural and educational philosophies of Confucianism. It is, moreover, a system of signs that represent concepts different from those of European and American culture and featuring distinctive social, political, cultural and academic connotations. Shih Chi [Records of the Grand Historian], TangPoems, Song Lyrics, YuanSongs, A Dream of Red Mansions, etc., are all recognized as treasured resources for the world’s literary semiotics.

Zhang (2012).

368

17

The Historical Mission of Chinese Semiotics

10. Artistic semiotics. Chinese art (painting, calligraphy, music, traditional opera, etc.) attaches great importance to the aesthetics of structure and form and embodies a distinctive and invariable Chinese spirit. After a 3000-year history, it has been crowned with such laurels as “Chinese expressionistic art,” “Chinese style art,” “Chinese subjectivist art,” “Chinese natural and spiritual art,” etc., and emerged as a semiotic system with unique Chinese characteristics. The semiotic nature of Chinese art is manifested by a structuralist tendency that embraces fixed forms and genres of text which pursue artist wholeness, a formalist tendency that ignores structural narrativity while strongly upholding formalist aesthetics, a symbolist tendency that attempts to pursue the “metaphysical” through imaginative symbols as well as an isomorphic ideographic tendency which believes that poetry is the root of Chinese culture, and all forms of Chinese art try to express the relation of signification through poetry2 (Li 1995: 39). 11. Phonological semiotics. Old Chinese phonology is the study of the systems of sound, rhyme and tune in the ancient Chinese language of different periods. Different from modern Chinese phonetics, it focuses largely on the analysis of the interrelations between different phonetic phenomena before the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368), which are of distinctive national characteristics. Representative works in this area include Shih Ching, or The Book of Songs (c.1100–771 BC), Qie Yun, or The Dictionary of Rhymes (601), Zhongyuan Yinyun, or Phonology of the Central Plains (1324), etc. Old Chinese phonology, which is loaded with such semiotic elements as layer, icon, sign and signification, turns out to be a wealth of treasure awaiting exploration. 12. Human semiotics. Chinese culture is best known for its long-standing history and profound essence. Throughout Chinese history which endorses the “unity of heaven and earth,” colored potteries, oracle characters as well as carvings and rock paintings found across the Central Plains area all remain as semiotic mysteries; hordes of sign objects of the ancestors have been discovered at the Banpo Neolithic Village, the ruins of the Dawenkou Culture, the Wei-Jin Tombs at the Jiayuguan Pass of the Great Wall, the Duhuang Mogao Grottoes, the Maijishan Grottoes, the Longmen Grottoes, etc. All this indicates the ever betterment of humans as signs and the infinite richness of the semiotic world. 13. Marxist semiotics. The study of Marxism is popular throughout the world. As the world largest socialist country, China has institutional advantages and takes unique responsibilities for the study in this field. The relationship between Marxism and semiotics is mainly manifested in methodology, that is, from the diachronic dimension of basic theoretical methods of Marxism, the synchronic method of structuralist semiotics can be rationally examined or subversively dispelled. At the same time, to differentiate and analyze the differences of semiotic practice and the relationship between the objects of semiotic criticism can expand the scope of the Marxist critical theory and enrich the development of Marxist semiotics.

2

Li (1995).

17.1

The Semiotic Spheres of Chinese Semiotics

369

We have listed above 13 semiotic spheres unique to China, to which Chinese semiotics scholars boast exceptional advantages. To study these semiotic spheres is the historic mission of Chinese semiotics, which is also where the hope of Chinese semiotics lies. We are thus fully convinced that “semiotics is, to a large extent, a Chinese discipline. It seems as if we had taken a doze and didn’t wake up until now and realized the great historical wealth of semiotics we boast. And the awakening of Chinese semiotics is gaining a high profile in the academic research communities”3 (Zhao 2012: 20). Then, what should we do to seize the opportunities and deliver the responsibilities endowed upon us?

17.2

The Academic Philosophy of Chinese Semiotics

1. An attitude of reference and innovation. Semiotics as a discipline has remained, since its founding, a privileged favor of the European and American academia, and it was not until the past 30 or 40 years that Chinese scholars have been comprehensively involved in the studies of semiotics. While introducing and learning from Europe and America is undeniably necessary, what we need to do is hold a correct attitude: firstly, “the theoretical argument that ‘West is West and East is East’ is no longer justifiable”4(Li 2004: 2). In the globalized era, human knowledge of all sorts should be re-sorted and reoriented under a unified academic framework; secondly, we should make innovations while taking reference from Europe and America to address the problems of Chinese semiotics with cutting-edge semiotic theories and facilitate the localization of semiotics in China; thirdly, we should devote more efforts to exploring the semiotic resources deeply rooted in traditional Chinese culture and be confident in establishing semiotic theories with Chinese characteristics. 2. A call for dialogue and argument. It has long been a fact that Chinese scholars address issues of Chinese semiotics by referring to either Saussure’s or Pierce’s theories or take either of these theories as absolute truth; meanwhile, European and American semiotics and traditional Chinese semiotics each tell their own stories. How to resolve this dilemma by initiating a dialogue between European and American semiotics and Chinese semiotics so that China’s own semiotic theories can be constructed and the essence of traditional Chinese semiotics can be shared by the world’s semiotics community has become a question facing the Chinese semiotics community. To gain a footing in the world’s semiotics community, Chinese semiotics calls for dialogue and argument: firstly, “the Chinese academic tradition is not only an important ‘otherness’ in but also a necessary interlocutor and supplement of the European and American scholarship” (Li 2004: 4); secondly, an interdisciplinary and cross-cultural research

3

Zhao (2012). Li (2004).

4

370

17

The Historical Mission of Chinese Semiotics

area, Chinese semiotics should meet with modern semiotics in its own and an all-round way to establish its say and earn its independence; thirdly, the emergence of Chinese semiotics “contributes itself to both the advancement of humanities studies in China and the self-reflection and readjustment of European and American semiotics” (Li 2004: 6). 3. An eclectic approach to chinese and European and American semiotics. Modern semiotics, despite its various schools, is acknowledged as having two paradigms —the Saussurean tradition and the Peircean tradition. The former, which is close to the humanistic trends in modern philosophy and based on Kant’s transcendental philosophy and structuralist thoughts, features a humanistic tendency and social interchangeability, and focuses on signification and exchange; the latter, which is close to the trends of scientism in modern philosophy and based on pragmatic philosophy, the theory of categories and logic, features scientism, empiricism, bio-behaviorism, cognitivity and interactivity, and focuses on cognition and thinking.5 Toward the different semiotic theories and, in particular, the two major schools of semiotics, Chinese scholars tend to be hesitant in deciding which side to take or to take one extreme side or the other, which may hamper Chinese semiotics from establishing itself independently. We argue that the particularities of Chinese culture call for an eclectic approach to the Chinese and European and American semiotics, a third option for the Chinese scholars, by which the subjective dignity and the academic philosophy of Chinese semiotics can be revealed. The eclectic approach is not simply a compromise or synthesis of the two European and American schools of thought; rather, it is a concept aiming at highlighting traditional Chinese culture while drawing on the essence of European and American traditions. At the core of this concept are these key elements: (1). Ontologically, the motivation of a sign should be prioritized while conventionality should also be taken into account; (2). Regarding the subject-object relations of the sign, how the subject interprets and creates the object should be addressed based on the “motivation” of a sign; (3). In terms of research methodology, the principle of rhetorical rationality and practical rationality should be followed to avoid the impulse of ideological criticism and truth-seeking and focus on the creation and interpretation of sign objects; (4). A theory of linguistic forms and true value logical pragmaticism, or in other words, formalization plus materialization, should be advocated; (5). A way of thinking featuring quasi-signs and a principle of imagery should be encouraged. 4. An exploration of the semiotization of meaning. Since Ernst Cassirer, European and American scholars have seen a sign as something that has a life of its own and even called semiotics a science of life, which is mainly attributed to the vigor and vitality of meaning. Semiotics is, in itself, a science of meaning, and meaning, which is born out of the cognitive abilities of human beings, is subject to growth and decay. The process of semiotization is, so to speak, a process through which meaning is endowed with life. And to examine Chinese semiotics

5

Guo (2008).

17.2

The Academic Philosophy of Chinese Semiotics

371

from the perspective of semiotization can help rectify deviations as timely as possible. “Semiotics is seldom applied to China’s academic practices, and once it is, it tends to be speculative. Some alleged theoretical works on semiotics tend to be complacent about being able to identify signs in some work or phenomenon. However, we should know that the identification of signs does not indicate the end of semiotic practices but rather the beginning of such practices. It is the process of semiotization that marks the central concern of semiotics; otherwise, semiotics will degrade to a ‘science of semiotic classification’”6 (Xue 1996: 14). 5. An inclusive embrace of “sign”. Previous studies of semiotics focus on primarily intentional signs (e.g., languages and artificial signs) while neglecting numerous unintentional signs (e.g., natural marks and object signs). In traditional Chinese semiotics, intentional signs remain as the major object of study while divinations, relics and object signs, not rarely seen and with distinctive features, fails to arouse the attention of the academia. We therefore propose an inclusive embrace of “sign” for China’s semiotics studies, the thrust of which is that attention should be paid to both intentional and unintentional, non-systematic signs, to both natural and artificial linguistic signs and non-linguistic signs, and to both formalized and materialized study of signs. We argue that this will be conducive to the incorporation of the resources of traditional Chinese semiotics into the world’s stock of semiotic resources as well as to highlighting the features of semiotics studies in China. 6. A unique mode of signification. The relation between the sign and the object, between the signifier and the signified, and between expression and content is generally referred to as “signification” through which people can examine the subjective and objective worlds by means of signs, which constitute modes of signification. Different semiotics theories adopt different modes of signification which lead to different types of semiotic systems. Traditional Chinese semiotics boasts a unique mode of signification—an integration of a way of thinking featuring quasi-signs and a principle of imagery. And in the world of generic signs, this mode of signification reflects can transcend the boundaries between the subject and the object, the sign and the object, the linguistic sign and the non-linguistic sign, motivation and arbitrariness, reference and implication, system and process as well as entity and form, establishing itself in the world’s semiotics community and demonstrating the magnificence of Chinese semiotics. Chinese semiotics boasts a long-standing history and a rich variety of resources, and it is now witnessing burgeoning research activities and proliferating research publications. However, more urgent efforts are still required, in light of the existing constraints, to enhance the influence and to elevate the status of semiotics studies in China. It is our belief that by advancing its progress based on the 13 semiotic

6

Xue (1996).

372

17

The Historical Mission of Chinese Semiotics

spheres and six aspects of the academic philosophy mentioned in this chapter, Chinese semiotics will embrace a brilliant future and China will become the world’s fourth epicenter for semiotics studies.

References Guo, H. (郭鸿). (2008). Essentials of contemporary Western semiotics (《现代西方符号学纲 要》) (pp. 41–55). Shanghai: Fudan University Press. Li, Y. Z. (李幼蒸). (1995). A study on Chinese traditional culture from the perspective of semiotics (“从符号学看中国传统文化”). Historiography Quarterly, (3), 39. Li, Y. Z. (李幼蒸). (2004). Significance and prospect: dialogues between Chinese and Western semiotics (“中西符号学对话的意义和前景”). Social Sciences Abroad, (4), 6. Xue, Y. (薛忆沩). (1996). Way to the modern semiotics (“走进当代符号学的必经之路”). Book House (《书屋》), (1), 14. Zhang. J. (张劲松). (2012). The semiotic study of Wenxin Diaolong (“《文心雕龙》符号学研究 —传统释义话语的叙事与结构符号学初探”). Signs and Media, (2), 100. Zhao, Y. (赵毅衡). (2012). The emerging of Chinese semiotics (“正在兴起的符号学中国学派 (代编者按)”). Guizhou Social Sciences, (12), 20.

References

Aarsleff, H. (1982). From Locke to Saussure. Minneapolix, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Actual problems of cultural semiotics. Tartu: University of Tartu. Ai, F. (1980). A brief introduction to the functional approach. Foreign Language Teaching Abroad, (3) Ai, M. (1993). Interpretation and study of symbols. Journal of Peking University (Foreign Language Edition), (1). Algirdas, J. G. (1998). Rules and practice of semiology (H. Wu, Trans.). Foreign Literature, (1). Algirdas, J. G. Structural semantics (H. Wu, Trans.). Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. Approaches to poetics. New York/London: Columbia University Press. Apresjan, J. (1973). Principles and methods of contemporary structural Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. Apresyan, Y. D. (1970). Synonymy and inversions. Russian Language in the National School (6). Aristotle’s poetics (J.Hutton, Trans.). NY: Norton. Arrived, M. (1983). Current situation and problems of semiology. Foreign Linguistics, (2). Arutyunova, N. D. (1982). Linguistic problems of reference. In New findings in foreign linguistics (13th ed.). Moscow: Rainbow. Auge, M. (1984). The anthropological circle: Symbol, function, history. Cambridge: CUP. Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Averintsev, S. S. (1989). The system of symbols in Vyacheslav Ivanov’s Poetry. In Context. Moscow: Gorky Institute of World Literature. Bai, C. (1998). The dialogue thinking of Mikhail Bakhtin. Literary Review, (5). Bakhtine, M. (1971). Problems der Poetik Dostoevekijs. Ullstein. Bakhtin, M. (1996). The problem of text. In Collected works (Vol, 7). Moscow: Russian Word. Bakhtin, M. M. (1998a). Marxism and the philosophy of language. In The complete works of Bakhtin (Chinese Version) (Vol. II). Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1998b). The problem of speech genres. In The complete works of Bakhtin (Chinese Version) (Vol. IV). Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1998c). Toward the philosophical foundation of the humanities. In The complete works of Bakhtin (Chinese Version) (Vol. IV). Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1998d). Toward a methodology for the human sciences. In The complete works of Bakhtin (Chinese Version) (Vol. IV). Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1998e). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. In The complete works of Bakhtin (Chinese Version) (Vol. V). Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press. Barabash, Y. Y. (Ed). (1977). Semiotics and artistic creativity. In Compilation. Moscow: Science.

© Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. Wang, Linguistic Semiotics, Peking University Linguistics Research 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7

373

374

References

Baran, H. (1976). Semiotics and structuralism: Readings from the Soviet Union. In Baran H (Ed.). New York: White Plains. Baran, H. (1985). Structuralism and semiotics. In Terras V (Ed.), Handbook of Russian Literature. New Haven, CT; London. Barthes, R. (1953). Writing degree zero. Paris: Seuil. Barthes, R. (1957a). Mythologies. Paris: Seuil. Barthes, R. (1957b). Mythologies. Paris: Seuil. Barthes, R. (1964). On rachine. In Sur Racine (Howard R, Trans.). (Paris: Seuil, 1963). New York: Hill and Wang Barthes, R. (1970a). L’Empire des Signs. Paris/Genève: Flammarion/Skira. Barthes, R. (1970b). S/Z. Paris: Seuil, (Miller R, Trans.)., With a preface by Richard Howard. London: Cape. Barthes, R. (1975a). Fundamentals of semiology. In Structuralism: For and against. Moscow: Progress. Barthes, R. (1975b). The pleasure of the text. Paris: Seuil. Barthes, R. (1985). L’Aventure Semiologique. Paris: Suil. Barthes, R. (1987). Elements of semiology (S. Dong & K. Wang, Trans.). Shenyang: Liaoning People’s Publishing House. Barthes, R. (1994). Empire of signs (M. Sun, Trans.). Beijing: The Commercial Press. Barthes, R. (1999). Elements of semiology (D. Wang, Trans.). Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. Barthes, R. (2000). The fashion system (A. Jun, Trans.). Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House. Barthes, R. (2005). Mythologies. In Q. Wu & D. Yu (Eds.), Visual Rhetoric. Beijing: China Renmin University Press. Barthes, R. (2008). The semiological adventure (Y. Li, Trans.). Beijing: China Renmin University Press. Barthes, R., et al. (1964). Elements of semiology. Paris: Seuil. Barthes, R. L. (1953). Degre Zero de L’Ecriture suivi de Elements de Semiology. Paris: Seuil. Barthes, R. L. (1973). Plaisir du Texte. Paris: Suil. Battistella, E. (1996). The logic of Markedness. New York/Oxford: CUP. Bei, X. (1995). An overview of the annual meeting of the Chinese association of logic on linguistic logic and semiotics. Philosophical Trends, (1). Bely, A. (1994a). Symbolism as world view. Moscow: Republic. Bely, A. (1994b). The Critic. In Aesthetics. The theory of symbolism (Vol. 2). Moscow: Art. Bely, A. (1994c). The Symbolism. In Bely A. Symbolism as world view. Moscow: Republic. Bense, M., & Walther, E. (1992). Generalized symbols and their applications in design (H. Xu, Trans.). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. Benveniste, E. (1971). Problems in general Linguistics. Oxford, OH: Miami Uiversity Press. Berezin, F. M., & Golovin, B. N. (1979). General linguistics. Moscow: Enlightenment. Berman, A. (1988). From the new criticism to deconstruction. Champaign, IL: Illinois Uiversity Press. Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General system theory. New York: Braziller. Bettetini, G. (1973). The language and technique of the film. The Hague: Mouton. Bicilli, P. M. (1996). Nation and language. In P. M. Bitsilli (Ed.), Selected works on philology. Moscow: Heritage. Blanchard, M. E. (1980). Description: Sign, self, desire. The Hague: Mouton. Blonsky, M. (1985). On signs: A semiotic reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Bloomfield, L. (1968). Language (8th ed.). London: Allen & Unwin. Bogatyrev, P. G. (1973). On the relationship of two similar semiotic systems (puppet theater and theater of live actors). In Works on sign systems. Tartu: University of Tartu. Boguslavsky, I. M. (Ed). (1971). Semiotics and Informatics: Collection of scientific articles. Moscow.

References

375

Bondarko, A. V. (1978). Grammatical meaning and sense. Leningrad: Science. Bondarko, A. V. (1982). Theory of functional grammar. Leningrad: Science. Bronowski, J. (1983). The evolution and power of symbolic languages. Foreign Linguistics, (4). Broekman, J. M. (1980). Structuralism (Y. Li, Trans.). Beijing: The Commercial Press. Broselow, E. (1988). Second language acquisition. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey (Vol. III, pp. 194–209). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1988). Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: CUP. Bryson, N. W. (2001). Vision and painting (Z. Wang, Trans.). Hangzhou: Zhejiang Photographic Publish. Budagov, R. A. (1981). Sign-meaning-thing (phenomenon). Foreign Linguistics, (1). Cai, J. (1988). Language as a symbolic system—a review of some issues in Foreign Linguistics. Foreign Languages Research, (4). Cai, J. (2002). The markedness theory of Jakobson—on its achievements and shortcomings. In Semiotic studies. Military Translation Press.. Cai, B. (1992a). Code, codebook and levels of information—notes of semiotics (II). Logic and Language Learning, (3). Cai, B. (1992b). The pattern of communication—notes of semiotics (I). Logic and Language Learning, (2). Cai, B. (1992c). Authenticity and appropriateness—notes of semiotics (III). Logic and Language Learning, (5). Cao, C. (1995) The motivation of words and cultural and historical background. Journal of Tianjin Normal University, (1). Cao, C. (1998). The arbitrariness of language and the motivation of words. Journal of Tianjin Normal University, (5). Carnap, R. (1958). Introduction to semantics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cassirer, E. (1985). An essay on man (Ganyang, Trans.). Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House. Cassirer, E. (1988). Symbol myth and culture (X. Li, Trans.). Beijing: The Eastern Publishing. Cen, Q. (1980). The famous Swiss Linguist Saussure and his course in general Linguistics. Linguistics Abroad, (1). Cen, Q. (1983). Jakobson and his contribution to Linguistics. Linguistics Abroad, (2). Cen, Q. (1988). A history of Linguistics (Revised Edition). Beijing: Peking University Press. Chang, J. (1988). The semantic meaning and classification of sentences. Logic and Language Learning, (4). Charles, M. (1985). The open self (D. Yang, Trans., H. Xu, Ed.). Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Press. Chatman, S. (1969). New ways of analyzing narrative structure. Language and Style, 2(1), 3–36. Chatman, S. (1971). Literary style: A symposium. London: Oxford University Press. Chatman, S. (1974, June). A semiotic landscape: Proceedings of the First Congress of IASS. Milan. The Hague/Paris/New York: Mouton. Che, M. (Ed). (1989). Western modern philosophy of language (L. Li, Trans.). Tianjin: Nankai University Press Che, X. (1998). Analysis of ambiguous sentences from the semiotic perspective. Journal of Daqing College, (3). Chebanov, S. V., & Martynenko, G. Y. (1999). Semiotics of descriptive texts. St. Petersburg: Saint-Petersburg State University. Chen, D. (1997). On the relationship between semiotics and communication. Journal of Hubei University (Philosophy and Social Science), (2). Chen, H. (1997). Language sign and character image: Dual symbolic attributes of literature: A preliminary discussion on the premise of literary semiotics. Zhejiang Social Sciences, (5). Chen, L (1996). Semiotics: The road to babel—reading three Chinese semiotic works. Journalism and Communication, 3(1).

376

References

Chen, L. (1999). Communicative functions and cultural differences of body language. In New horizons in language and semiotics in China. Chen, M. (2006). Chinese grammatology. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Chen, P. (1987). Description and explanation: On the aims and methods of modern western Linguistic researches. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (1). Chen, S. (1985). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Beijing: Peking University Press. Chen, Y. (2002). Inheritance and innovation—on the historical evolution of semiotic studies in Russia. In Semiotic Studies. Beijing: Military Translation Press. Chen, Z. (1994). Semiotic meanings of discourse sequence. Foreign Language Research, (4). Chen, Z. (2001). Semiotics of Chinese characters. Nanjing: Jiangsu Education Publishing House. Chen, Z., & Liu, J. (Eds). (1999). New horizons in language and semiotics in China. Chengdu: Sichuan Science and Technology Press. Chen, J., & Tan, Z. (1993). The multidisciplinary study of language and culture. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press. Chen, Z., & Cheng, J. (2002). On metaphorical categorization in English and Chinese. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Chen, Z., & Jiang, Y. (2002) A study on sequence iconicity of language structures in English and Chinese clauses. Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Chen, Z., & Liang, S. (1999). On the symbolic dimension of philosophy. In New horizons in language and semiotics in China. Chen, Z., & Liu, C. (2002) Social and cultural regularity of Linguistic signs and domestication of borrowed words. In Semiotic Studies. Beijing: Military Translation Press. Chen, Z., & Wen, X. (1999). An overview of the Biennial conference of the Chinese association for language and semiotic studies. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (1). Cheng, Q. (1997). Linguistic semiotics of localized clauses. In Progress of functional Linguistics in China. Cheng, Q. (1999). The frame of Linguistic semantic of semantic words. Foreign Languages in Fujian, (1). Cheng, Q. (2002). Arguing for cognitive plausibility of stratified signs. In Semiotic Studies. Beijing: Military Translation Press. Chernov, I. (1979). Semiotics of the text. Tartu: University of Tartu. Chikobava (Чикoбaвa). (1982). Comment on Saussure’s Linguistic doctrine (Z. Bai, Trans.). Journal of Hubei Coal Industries Teachers College, (1). Chomsky, N. (1968). And Morris Halle. The Sound Pattern of English. NY: Harper & Row. Chomsky, N. (1979). Syntactic structures (G. Xing, Trans.). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. Chomsky, N. (1980). Deep structure, surface structure and semantic structure. In Translated collection of Linguistics (II). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. Clarke, D. (1987). Principles of semiotic [M]. New Yok/London: Routledge. Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and Linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and Linguistic typology (J. Shen, Trans.). Beijing: Huaxia Publishing House. Coquet, J. C. (1997a). The semiotics of speech (D. Yu Ed. and Trans.). Beijing: Beijing University Press. Coquet, J. C. (1997b). Paradigme
texts
instance corporelle: From structuralism to discourse semiotics. Foreign Literaturem, (2). Coquet, J. C. (1997c). Discourse semiotics (D. Yu Ed. and Trans.). Beijing: Peking University Press. Croft, W. (1995). Modern Syntactic typology. In M. Shibatani & T. Bynon (Eds.), Approaches to language typology (pp. 85–144). Oxford: Oxford University press. Croft, W. (1996). Markedness and universals: From the Prague school to typology. In Kurt R. Jankowsky (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on the historical dimensions of language. Munster: Nodus.

References

377

Croft, W. (2000). Parts of speech as language universals and as language-particular categories. In P. M. Vogel & Comrie B (Eds.), Approaches to the typology of word classes (pp. 65–102). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Culler, J. (1975). Structuralist poetics: Structrualism, Linguistics and the study of literature. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Culler, J. (1976). Saussure. London: Fontana. Dai, H. (1990). The foreword to functionalism and Chinese grammar. Linguistics Abroad, (3). de George, R. T., & Fernande, M. (Eds). The structuralists: from Marx to Levi-Strauss. New York: Anchor. de Saussure, F. (1966). Course in general linguistics. In C. Balley & A. Sechehaye (Eds.), Collaboration with Albert Riedlinger. (W. Baskin, With an introduction and notes, Trans.). New York/Toronto/London: McGraw-Hill. de Saussure, F. (1980). Course in general Linguistics (M. Gao, Trans.). Beijing: The Commercial Press. de Waal, C. (2003). On peirce (C. Hao, Trans.). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Deely, J. (1982). Introducing semiotic: Its history and doctrine. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Deely, J. (1986). Frontiers in semiotics. Indiana U pr. Deng, S. (1993). Semiotic features and interpretation of traditional cultural works. Philosophical Research, (1). Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of philosophy. Chicago: The university of Chicago press. Derrida, J. (1999a). Of grammatology (T. Wang, Trans.). Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House. Derrida, J. (1999b). Voice and phenomenon: Introduction to the problem of the sign in Husserl’s phenomenology (X. Du, Trans.). Beijing: The Commercial Press. Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference. Chicago U pr. Dik, S. (1981). Functional grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Ding, E. (1994a). Beyond Noumenon. Suzhou: Soochow University Press. Ding, E. (1994b). On Peirce’s trichotomy of signs. Foreign Language and Literature, (3). Ding, E. (2000). Semiosis of language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Ding, E. (2010). Peirce’s theory of signs and the classification of Chinese characters. Signs & Media, (1). Ding, E. (2012). Signs and Meaning. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press. Ding, H. (2000). On the semiotic structural system of Chinese Operas. China Theatre Press, (4). Dong, Q. (1995). Semiotic interpretation of art reception. Academic Exchange, (4). Dong, X. (1994). Tower of Babylon—Bakhtin and dialogue theory. SDX Joint Publishing Company. Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Dressler, U. W., & De Beatugrande, R. A. (1981). Introduction to text Linguistics. London: Longman. Du, H. (2000). Marking in English Pairs of antonyms. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (2). Du, G. (2002). The Moscow-Tartu school of semiotics. Foreign Language Research, (1). Du, Q. (1996). Semiotics, Chinese characters, glyphomancy and poetry criticism. Foreign Language and Literature, (1). Du, W. (1996). Iconicity of language foreign language and literature. Foreign Language and Literature, (1). Du, S., & Ning, Y. (1997). Methods of linguistics studies. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (3). Eco, U. (1967). Opera Aperta. In Bompiani. Milano: Bompiani. Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press. Eco, U. (1979). The role of the reader. Indiana U pr. Eco, U. (1984). A semiotics and the philosophy language. London: MacMillan.

378

References

Eco, U. (1990). A theory of semiotics (D. Lu, Trans.). Beijing: China Renmin University Press. Edmondson, J. (1985). Biological foundations of language universals. In C. N. Baily & R. Harris (Eds.), Developmental mechanisms of language (pp. 109–130). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Ehrmann & Jacques. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Anchor Books. Eimermacher, K. (1998). Sign. In Text Culture. Moscow: RSUH. Eschbach, A., & Koch, W. A. (Eds). (1987). A plea for cultural semiotics. Brockmeyer: Bochum. Fan, X. (1996). Three aspects of grammar. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press. Fang, C. (1997). On Lacan’s psychoanalysis of semiotics. Foreign Language and Literature, (3). Feng, Z. (1987). Modern Linguistic schools. Xi’an: Shaanxi People’s Publishing House. Feng, S. (1994). Question on Arbitrariness of signs. In The First Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Firth, R. (1975). Symbols: Public and private. London: Allen & Unwin. Florensky, P. A. (1994). Iconostasis. Moscow. Fordor, J., & Katz, J. (Eds). The structure of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Forget, P. (1984). Text and interpretation. München: Fink/UTB. Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Freeman, D. (Ed). (1970). Linguistics and literary style. New York/London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Frege, G. (1988). On meaning and reference In J. Tu (Ed.), Selected works on Linguistic philosophy. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. Fu, Y. (1997). Motivation of words and its cultural connotation. Journal of Qiqihar University, (6). Gao, C. (1993). Signs and the construction of the sacred world: An introduction to the Linguistics of religion. Changchun: Jilin University Press. Gao, L. (1997). An exploration of semiotic thoughts in Shuowen Jiezi. Journal of Hubei University (Philosophy & Social Sciences Edition), (2). Gao, L. (1998). Folkloristics and semiotics. Journal of South-Central University for Nationalities (Philosophy & Social Sciences Edition), (4). Gao, M. (1957). Course in general linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai New Knowledge Press. Gao, M. (1995). Introduction to Linguistics. Beijing: The Commercial Press. Gao, W. (1991). The cognitive theory. Beijing: People’s Publishing House. Gao, X. (1988). Learn something about semiotics—about signs. Foreign Languages and their Teaching, (3). Gasparov, M. L. (1994). View from the corner. In Y. M. Lotman (Ed.), The Tartu-Moscow school of semiotics Moscow: Science. Gerhardt, M. (1984). The art of narration. Moscow: Science. Givón, T. (1995). Functionalism and grammar. Amersterdam: John Benjamins. Gleason H. A., Jr. (1961). An introduction to descriptive Linguistics. Revised edition. New York/London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Gleason H. A., Jr. (1965). Linguistics and english grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Golosovker, Y. E. (1987). Logic of myth. Moscow: Science. Gong, F. (2000). On the functionalism in Linguistic studies. Foreign Language Research, (3). Gong, P. (2005). Cultural semiotics. Beijing: Peking University Press. Goodman, N. (1968). Language of art. New York: Bobs-Merrill Company. Gorny, E. (1996). What is semiotics (pp. 168–175). Rainbow. Gou, Z. (1993). The origin and development of semiotics. Journal of Baoji University of Arts and Sciences (Philosophy & Social Sciences Edition), (1). Gou, Z. (1994). On application of semiotic methods in creative design of advertisement language. Journal of Baoji University of Arts and Sciences (Philosophy & Social Sciences Edition), (1). Gou, Z. (1995) Semiotics in Pre-Qin philosophy. Academic Forum, (2). Gou, Z. (1997). On the epistemology of aI semiotics. Linnan Journal, (4). Gou, Z. (1999a). Meaning and signs. Guangzhou: Guangdong People’s Publishing House.

References

379

Gou, Z. (1999b). On Zhang Zai’s Ching semiotics. Linnan Journal, (5). Gou, Z., & Chen, C. (2003). From the perspective of semiotics: A semiotic interpretation of the sociocultural phenomenon. Guangzhou: Guangdong People’s Publishing House. Greimas, A. J. (1966). Semantique Structurale. Paris: Librairie Larousse. Greimas, A. J. (1970). Sign, language, culture. The Hague: Mouton. Greimas, A. J. (1982). Semiotics and languaege: An analytical dictionary. Bloomington: Indiana Uiverisity Press. Greimas, A., et al. (Eds). (1970). Sign—language—culture. Mouto: The Hague/Paris. Gu, T. (1999). Analysis of Euphemism from the semiotic perspective. Foreign Language Education, 20(1). Gu, J. (2002). Analysis of cultural semiotics and cultural structures. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Guan, S. (1996). Symbol, meaning and message of language and style of discourse. Shandong Foreign Languages Teaching Journal, (1). Guan, Y. (1997). Aesthetic characteristics of nationality headdress from the semiotic perspective. Ningxia Academy of Social Sciences, (2). Guiraud, P. (1971). Semiology. Paris: P.U.F. Guiraud, P. (1988). Semiology (H. Yu, Trans.). Chengdu: Sichuan People’s Publishing House. Guo, G. (1985). Value of language signs. Foreign Language Education, (3). Guo, H. (1994). On the properties, scope, methods, significance and prospects of semiotics. In The First Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Guo, H. (1998). Semiotics makes Linguistics a science. Foreign Languages Research, (3). Guo, H. (1999). Semiotics is the theoretical basis of modern Linguistics and stylistics. In New Horizons in Language and Semiotics in China . Guo, H. (2002). On the properties, scope and methods—review and prospect of semiotics. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Guo, Y. (1995). Referential relations of words. Russian in China, (4). Guo, Y. (1996). Semiosis and meanings of words. Russian in China, (4). Haiman, J. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language (56). Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday. Halle & Morris. (1956). Fundamentals of language. In Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, I. The Hague: Mouton. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold. Han, C. (2009). Icon: The rediscovery of semiotics. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press. Harris, Z. S. (1961). Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago press. Hartman & Geoffrey. (1970). Beyond formalism. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Hartmann, R. R. K. (1980). Contrastive textology: Comparative discourse analysis in applied Linguistics. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag. Hawkes. T. (1987). Structuralism and semiotics (T. Qu, Trans.). Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House. Hawkins, J. A. (1988). Explaining language universals. In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 3–30). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. He, J. (2000). Culturology of Chinese characters. Shenyang: Liaoning People’s Publishing House. He, X., & Zeng, J. (2014, February 17). China will be a new epicenter for semiotics studies. Chinese Social Sciences. He, X. (1999). Enlightenment of Saussure’s semiotic theory on cross-cultural communication studies. In New horizons in language and semiotics in China. Chengdu: Sichuan Science and Technology Press. He, Y. (2000). On the denotative referential characteristics of words. Beijing: Doctoral Dissertation of Beijing Foreign Studies University. He, Z., & Yu, G. (2001). A review of researches on code-switching. Modern Foreign Languages, (1). Heath, S. M. C., & Prendergast, C. (1971). Signs of the times. Cambridge: Granta.

380

References

Heger, K. (1964). Die Methodologischen Voraussetzungen Von Onomasiologie und Berifflicher Gliederung. Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie. Henault, A., & Beyaert, A. (2014). Semiotics in the visual arts (H. Yu, Trans.). Chengdu: Sichuan University Press. Hervey, S. (1982). Semiotic perspectives. Dundee, Scotland: St Andrews. Herzfeld, M. (1988). Semiotic theory and practice. In Proceedings of Third Congress of IASS, Palermo, 1984, V.1-2. The Hague: Mouton. Hinde, R. A. (1972). Non-verbal communication. Cambrige: Cambrige Universtity Press. Hiraga, M. K. (1995) Diagrams and metaphors: Iconic aspects in language. Journal of Pragmatics, (22), 5–21. Hjelmslev, L. (1969). Prolegomena to a theory of language. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Uiversity Press. Hockett, C. F. (1958). A course in modern Linguistics. New York: MacMillan. Hou, C. (1997). On the relation of code model and inferential model. Foreign Languages Research, (3). Hu, M. (1989). Introduction to theatrical semiotics. Beijing: China Theatre Press. Hu, X. (1991). The origin and development of Western semiotics. Journal of Kashgar University, (2). Hu, Y. (2012). Media semiotics: Theoretical shift to McLuhan. Suzhou: Soochow University Press. Hu, Y. (2014). Semiotics of image: perspective on media spectacle. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press. Hu, Z. (1989). A survey of systemic-functional grammar. Changsha: Hunan Education Publishing House. Hu, Z. (1990). Language system and function. Beijing: Peking University Press. Hu, Z. (1994). Bakhtin and social semiotics. Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), (2). Hu, Z. (1999). Some problems in the contemporary semiotic studies. Foreign Languages in Fujian, (1). Hu, Z. (2000). Discussion on functionalism. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Hu, Z. (2002a). Computational semiotics. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Hu, Z. (2002b). Toward Bakhtin’s semiotic kingdom. In Semiotic Studies. Beijing: Military Translation Press. Hu, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2012). A dictionary of semiotics & media studies. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press. Hu, J., & Qiu, M. (1999). The speech and meaning of Zhuangzi’s theory and the signifier and signified in semiotics. Journal of Fuzhou Teachers College, (4). Hua, S. (1989). Speaker and addressee from the perspective of pragmatics. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (3). Hua, S. (1991). Selected papers of Hua Shao. Harbin: Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House. Hua, S. (1996). Research on metonymy from the semiotic perspective. Foreign Languages Research, (4). Huang, D. (2006). The history of Chinese philology. Anhui: Anhui Education Publishing House. Huang, F. (1988). Basics of theoretical Linguistics. Wuhan: Central China Normal University Press. Huang, G. (1989). Essentials of text analysis. Changsha: Hunan Education Publishing House. Huang, H. (1988). An overview of semiotics—comments on semiotic perspectives. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (2). Huang, L. (1997). Creative features of advertisement from the semiotic perspective. Journal of Journalism and Information Communication School of HUST, Winter. Huang, X. (1995). An overview of narrative semiotics in France. Foreign Literature, (3).

References

381

Huang, Y. (1996). Systematic principles of language studies—a review of Saussure’s course in general Linguistics. Social Sciences Review, (1). Huang, H., & Chen, Z. (2004). Introduction to semiotics. Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House. Huang, Y., & Meng, H. (2001). Semiotics of Chinese characters. Shanghai: Shanghai Classics Publishing House. Hymes, D. (1970). On communicative competence. Hymes, D. (1978). Comments on Soviet semiotics and criticism. In New Literary History (Vol. 9 № 2). Hyman, L. (1975). Phonology: theory and analysis. New York: Holt. Kenstowicz, Michael. Ikegami, Y. (1985a). An introduction to semiotics (X. Zhang, Trans.). Beijing: China International Culture Press. Ikegami, Y. (1985b). An introduction to semiotics (X. Zhang, Trans.).. Beijing: World Culture Books. Ikegami, Y. (1998). Poetics and cultural semiotics: From a Linguistic perspective (Z. Lin, Trans.). Nanjing: Yilin Press. In the three dimensions of language: Semiotic problems of linguistics, philosophy and art. Moscow: Science, 1985. Ivanov, V. V. (1976). Essays on the history of semiotics in the USSR. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture. Ivanov, V. V. (1999). Selected works on semiotics and cultural history (Vol. 1). Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture. Ivanov, V. V. (1973). Significance of M.M. Bakhtin’s ideas on sign, statement and dialogue of modern semiotics. In Works on sign systems. Tartu: University of Tartu. Ivanov, V. V. (1976). Essays on the history of semiotics in the USSR. Moscow: Science. Ivanov, V. V., Lotman, Y. M., Pyatigorsky, A. M., Toporov, V. N., & Uspensky, B. A. (1973). Abstracts for the semiotic study of culture. (as applied to Slavic texts) SemiotykaIstrukturatekstu: StudiappswieconeVIIMiedzynarodowemukongresowislawistow (Warszawa, 1973). Red. M. R. Mayenowa. Wroclaw; Warszawa; Krarow; Gdansk. Ivanov, V. V., & Toporov, V. N. (1965). Slavic language modeling semiotic systems: Ancient period. Moscow: Science, 1965. Jakobson, R. (1966/1971). Quest for the essence of language. In Selected writings II (pp. 345– 359). The Hague: Mouton. Jakobson, R. Selected writings (Vol. 4, 1962). The Hague: Mouton; Vol. I: Phonological Studies, 1962; Vol. II: Word and Language, 1971 (contains ‘Language in relation to other communication system’ pp. 697–708, which maps the field of semiotics); Vol. III: Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry (forthcoming); Vol. IV Slavic Epic Studies, 1966. Jacobson, R. (1972). On the question of visual and auditory signs. Semiotics and art. Moscow: Mir Publishers. Jakobson, R. (1990). On language. Cambrige: Harvard University Press. Jakobson, R. (2012). A Roman Jakobson anthology (A. Jun, Trans.). Beijing: The Commercial Press. Jacobson, R. O. (1985). Selected works. Moscow: Progress. Jacobson, R. O. (1987). Works on poetics. Moscow: Progress. Jacobson, R. O. (1996). Language and the unconsciousness. Moscow: Gnosis. Jakobson, R., & Halle, M. (1980). Fundamentals of language. The Hague: Mouton. Jakobson, R., & Waugh, L. (1979). The sound shape of language. Bloomington: Indiana UP. Ji, Y. (1996). Semiotic interpretation of social structure and operating model. Journal of Tianjin Normal University (Social Sciences Edition), (1). Ji, G. (1999). Post-modernization of language studies is urgent. Foreign Languages Research, (1). Jia, Y. (1986). Introduction to semantics. Beijing: Peking University Press. Jian, H. (1999). Scientific signs and artistic signs: A thought on semiotics. Journal of Yunnan Arts University, (2).

382

References

Jiang, K. (1999). Speech act and symbolic function in literature. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (9). Jiang, K. (2011). Semiology of literary language. Chengdu: Sichuan People’s Publishing House. Jiang, Y. (1999). Traditional boundaries: signs, discourses and national cultures. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Publishing House. Ju, Y. (1999). On language structure and system through the point of parole system. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (3). Kates, C. (1980). Pragmatics and semantics. Cornell U pr,. Katz, J. (1972). Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row. Katzner, K. (1980). The language of the world ( C. Dong, Trans.). Beijing: Beijing Publishing House. Ke, P. (1990). Semantic pattern of semiotics in translation studies. Journal of Peking University, Special Issue, (109). Kevelson, R. (1986). Semiotics in the United States. In T. A. Sebeok & J. Umiker-Sebeok (Eds.), The semiotics sphere. New York: Plenum Press. Koch, W. A. (1989). Culture and semiotics. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Koch, W. A. (Ed). (1990). Semiotics in the individual sciences. In 2 Parts. II Brockmeyer: Bochum. Kodukhov, V. I. (1974). General Linguistics. Moscow: Graduate School. Kondrashov, N. A. (1979). History of Linguistic teachings. Moscow: Enlightenment. Koshelev, A. D. & Lotman Y. M. (1994). The Tartu-Moscow school of semiotics. Moscow: Gnosis. Krysin, L. P. (1980). Life of words. Moscow: Enlightenment. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books. Lang, T., & Wang R. (1999). Translation of the theme in a discourse base on the Markedness theory of typology. In New Horizons in Language and semiotics in China. Lanigan, R. (1972). Speaking and semiology. The Hauge: Mouton. Lapointe, Steven. (1986). Markedness, the organization of linguistic information in speech production, and language acquisition. In Fred Eckman, Edith Moravcsik, & Jessica Wairth (Eds.), Markedness (pp. 219–240). New York: Plenum. Le, M. (1994). Saussure’s semiotic Linguistic view. Journal of Foreign Languages, (6). Le, M. (1997). More on Saussure’s semiotic view of language: Nature of Linguistic signs. Journal of Foreign Languages, (4). Leach, E. (1976). Culture and communication: The logic by which symbols are connected. London: Cambrige University Press. Leahey, T. H. (1980). A history of psychology—main currents in psychological thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Leech, G. N. (1983a). Semantics [M]. Middlesex: Penguin Books. Leech, G. N. (1983b). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Leech, G. N. (1997). Rethinking architecture: A reader in cultural semiotics. New York. Lehmann, W. P. (1972). Descriptive Linguistics: An introduction. New York: Random House. Lenpschy, G. C. (1986). A survey of structural Linguistics. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. Lepschy, G. C. (1970). A survey of structural linguistics. London: Faber and Faber. Levi-Strauss, C. (1978). Myth and meaning. New York: University of Toronto Press. Levin, R. (1962). Linguistic structures in poetry. The Hague: Mouton. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. Li, B. (1990). The theory of phonological markedness: Emergence and development. Journal of Xinjiang Normal University, (3). Li, B. (1994). On the errors and reversals of Saussure’s Arbitrariness of Linguistic signs. Applied Linguistics, (3). Li, B. (1999). From fragment to system: A glimpse of western semiotic research. Journal of International Communication, (6). Li, B. (2000). Signs in the era of high-tech. Tianjin: Tianjin Science and Technology Press.

References

383

Li, G. (1994). On translation equivalence: A social semiotic approach. Chinese Science & Technology Translators Journal, (1). Li, G. (1998). A review of researches on code-switching. Xuzhou Normal University, (1). Li, J. (1995). Sign culture and foreign language teaching. Journal of Shantou University, (1). Li, J. (1999a). Code-switching and the symbolic functions of addressing terms. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (2). Li, J. (1999b). Classification of signs and their application in English advertising. In New Horizons in Language and Semiotics in China. Chengdu: Sichuan Science and Technology Press. Li, J. (2002). Scotton’s Markedness model and new development in code-switching studies. In A Study on Semiotics. Beijing: Military Translation Press. Li, L. (1983). On the signified relationship and meaning relationship of language and the relationship between them. Series in Linguistics, (4). Li, M. (1997). Historical origin of social semiotics and its translation principles. Shanghai Journal of Translators for Science and Technology, (4). Li, M. (2000). On the relationship among syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (2). Li, S. (1997). On the markedness of Linguistic units. Russian in China, (2). Li, S. (2002). An overview of the development of Lotman’s semiotics of culture. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (3). Li, T. (1986). Roland Barthes’ semiotics: A brief review. Etudes Francaises, (2). Li, W. (2014). Semiotics of journalism. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press. Li, X. (1990). Sign process and sign classification. Logic and Language Learning, (4). Li, X. (1988). What are sign and semiotics. Logic and Language Learning, (6). Li, X. (1992). On semiotic functions of art and culture. Journal of Baoji Normal University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition), (4). Li, X. (1993). Semiotics in Gongsun long’s on name and nature. Philosophical Research, (6). Li, X. (1995). On semiotics of Pre-Qin masters. Journal of Hubei University (Philosophy and Social Science), (5). Li, X. (1996). Semiotics in Mohist canon. Journal of Hubei University (Philosophy and Social Science), (3). Li, X. (1999). Aesthetic and semiotic approaches to fairy tales and myths. Songliao Journal Social Science Edition, (6). Li, X. (2006). Language, sign and logic. Wuhan: Hubei People’s Publishing House. Li, Y. (1987). Structuralism and semiotics in film. In A Collection of Translations of Film Theories. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. Li, Y. (1994). An overview of the classification of signs and human language features: The enlightenment of language ontogeny to top students in english learning. Shandong Foreign Languages Journal, (3–4). Li, Y. (1995a). Semiotic approaches to radio and tv news. China Radio & TV Academic Journal, (10). Li, Y. (1995b). Semiotic approaches to the traditional Chinese culture. Historiography Quarterly, (3). Li, Y. (1999). Introduction to theoretical semiotics. Beijing: Social Science Academic Press. Li, Y. (2002). Markedness theory and its application in language research. 2002. Li, Y. (2003). A semiotic of history. Guilin: Guangxi Normal University Press. Li, Y. (2007). Introduction to theoretical semiotics. Beijing: China Social Science Press. Li, Z. (1989). The path of beauty. Beijing: China Social Science Press. Li, Z. (2003). Social semiotic approach to multimodal discourse. Foreign Languages Research, (5). Li, B., & An, H. (2002) Metalinguistic signs and project of language gene mapping analysis. In A Study on semiotics. Beijing: Military Translation Press. Li, L., & Zhang, S. (1995). On poetry translation and semiotics. Journal of Yiyang Teachers College, (4). Li, T., & Wang, S. (1999). Explanations on cultural signs from the perspective of the Markedness theory. In New Horizons in Language and Semiotics in China. Chengdu: Sichuan Science and Technology Press.

384

References

Li, Y., & Wang, Y. (1997). Functions of marked theme. Shandong Foreign Languages Journal, (4). Lian, F. (1997). Signs in your life: An introduction to semiotics. Harbin: Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House. Liang, Z. (1983). What is semiotics? Encyclopedic Knowledge, (6). Liao, S. (1990). Sign and communication: The influence of social culture. Foreign Languages in Fujian, (1). Liao, Y., & Ding, J. (1997). On the conventionality of language. Foreign Language Education, (3). Liu, C. (1998). The code-switching in Lady Chatterley’s lover. Fujian Foreign Languages, (1). Liu, F. (1989). The target language and source language in Linguistics. Modern Foreign Languages, (3). Lin, G. (1986). Sign psychology literature. Guangzhou: Huacheng Publishing House. Liu, L. (1989). The general phenomenon of kinship terms studied by Markedness theory. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching, (2). Liu, J. (1997). English signs and their communicative functions. Journal of Wenzhou Teachers College, (5). Liu, J. (1999). Several issues about signification. In Development of Language and Semiology in China. Lin, J. (2000). A preliminary study on modern western semiotics. Foreign Languages Study, (1). Liu, J. (2002). Social semiotics of language. In Semiotic studies . Beijing: Military Translation Press. Liu, R. (1992). Saussure’s theory of Linguistics. Foreign Language Teaching Materials Newsletter, (1). Lin, R. (1994). Signs and the second language acquisition order. Foreign Languages and Translation, (1). Liu, R. (1995). Western schools of Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Lin, S. (1995). Introduction of metaphor and iconicity. Foreign Linguistics, (3). Lin, X. (1994). The abstract thinking function of metaphor. Modern Foreign Languages, (4). Lin, X. (2011). Social semiotics. Shanghai: Orient Publishing Center. Liu, Y. (1981). Saussure’ s philosophy of language. Journal of Foreign Language, (1). Liu, Y. (1993). An introduction to mathematical semiotics. Hefei: Anhui Education Publishing House. Liu, Y. (1995a). Preface of Fu-hsi and Chinese culture: Semiological research on Chinese cultural origin. Journals of Yunnan Minzu University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), (3). Liu, Y. (1995b). Semiotics and cross-cultural communication. In Y. Liu (Ed.)., National Collection of Excellent English Academic Papers 95 (Vol. I). Chengdu: University of Electronic Science and Technology of China. Liu, Y. (1997). On temporality of Saussure’s synchrony. Journal of Japanese Language Study and Research, (3). Lin, Y. (1999). The marking and translation of word meaning. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (9). Liu, Y. (2000). An Outline of history of development of Chinese characters. Beijing: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. Liu, Z. (1991). The divination of China’s Yi-ology. Beijing: Red Flag Press. Liu, Z. (1993). New discussion on language and meaning: Discrimination of “language and meaning” and semiotics, imagery. Journal of Guiyang University (Social Sciences Edition), (4). Liu, Z. (1999a). News culture and signs. Beijing: China Science Publishing. Liu, Z. (1999b). An analysis of national cultural semanteme and bipolar semiotic system. Foreign Languages Research, (1). Lin, M., & Zeng, X. (1996). Analysis of Sophistry paradox by semiotics. Academic Research, (2). Liszka, J. J. (1989). The semiotics of myth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Losev, A. (1993). Essays of ancient symbolism and mythology. Moscow: Thought.

References

385

Lotman, Y. M. (1994). Abstracts for semiotics of Russian culture. Moscow: Gnosis Lotman Y.M.; Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School. Lotman, Y. M. (2000). Semiosphere. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg’s Art. Lotman, J. (1973, October 12) Different cultures, different codes. Times Literary Supplement. Lotman, J. (1976). Semiotics of cinema (E. S. Mark, Trans.). Michigan Slavic Contributions, № 5. Ann Arbor. Lotman, J. (1990). Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture (S. An, Ed. and Trans.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Lotman, J., & Uspenskij B. (1984). The semiotics of russian culture. In S. Ann (Ed.), Michigan Slavic Contributions, 11. Ann Arbor. Lotman, J., & Uspenskij B. (1985). Ginsburg Lidia la. The Semiotics of Russian. In A. D. & A. S. Nakhimovsky (Eds.), Cultural history: Essays Intro. B. M. Gasparov. Ithaca, NY; London. Lotman, Y. (1981a). Semiotics of culture. Tartu: University of Tartu. Lotman, Y. (1981b). Structure and semiotics of literary text. Tartu: University of Tartu. Lotman, Y. (1984). Structure of dialogue as a principle of semiotic mechanism. Tartu: University of Tartu. Lotman, Y. (1986). Semiotics of space and space of semiotics. Tartu: University of Tartu. Lotman, Y. (1998). Lotman and Tartu-Moscow semiotic school. St. Petersburg. Lotman, Y. M. (1964). Lectures on structuralist poetics. ed. 1: (Introduction, theory of verses)/ executive editor: Egorov B. Tartu: University of Tartu, 1964. 195 p., (Scientific notes: University of Tartu; No. 160). Lotman, Y. M. (1965). On the problem of values in secondary modeling systems. In Works on sign systems. II. Tartu: University of Tartu. Lotman, Y. M. (1973). Semiotics of cinema and problems of cinema aesthetics. Tallinn: Eesti Raamat. Lotman, Y. M. (1978). The Phenomenon of culture. Semiotics of culture. In Works on sign systems (Vol 10th). Tartu: Scientific Notes, University of Tartu, p. 463. Lotman, Y. M. (1984). Semioticians in St. Petersburg and problems of semiotics of the city. In Works on sign systems (Vol. 18). Tartu: University of Tartu. Lotman, Y. M. (1999). In the worlds of thoughts. Man-text-semiosphere-history. In Moscow, School of Languages of Russian culture. Lu, D. (1983). On Saussure’s criticism about traditional grammar. Modern Foreign Languages, (3). Lu, D. (2007). Semiotic interpretation of youth culture. Beijing: Social Science Academic Press. Lu, D. (2002). On essential characteristics of signs. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Lu, D. (2001). On the classification of signs. In Semiotic Studies. Lu, D. (2002). Re-evaluation on Saussure’s semiotics. In Semiotic Studies. Beijing: Military Translation Press. Lu, Q. (2002). Interpretation of equivalence from the perspective of semiotics. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Lu, L. (1996). Languages
signs
structure—Saussure’s view of structural language. Journal of Hubei University, (4). Lucid, D. (1977). Soviet semiotics. Baltimore, MD: Hopkins Uiversity Press. Luo, J. (1988). On the translation perspective of semiotics. Chinese Translators Journal, (1). Luo, L. (1999). Interpreting the poetic form of Langston Hughes’ works from the perspective of social semiotics. Journal of Liaoning University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), (5). Lyons, J. (1968). Introction to theoretical Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: CUP. Lyons, J. (1981). Language and Linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: CUP. Lyons, J. (Ed). (1987). New horizons in Linguistics. London: Penguin Books. Ma, A., & Zeng, L. (1983). Foreign Languages and Translation, (3). Ma, G. (1996). The value relationship between aesthetic subject and symbolic object from the perspective of semiotics Journal of Renmin University of China, (3).

386

References

Maltz, A. (Ed). (1984).Semiotics of the city and urban culture. St. Petersburg-Tartu. Maltz, A. (1978). Semiotics of culture. Tartu: University of Tartu. Mao, Y. (1993). Analysis and comparison of Saussure’s semiology and pierce’s semiotics. Graduate Students’ Journal of Beijing University, (3). Mao, X. (1997). “Macrolinguistics” and Saussure’s “semiotics”. Chinese Character Culture, (2). Marcel, D. (1995). Interpreting advertisements: A semiotics guide. New York: Legas. Martinet, A. (1978). Elements de Linguistique generale [Elements of General Linguistics]. (1st ed., 1960); Paris: Armand Colin, 1978; London: Faber and Faber. Martinich, A. (1985). The philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford Uiversity Press. Matejka, L., & Pomorska K. (1971). Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and structuralist views. Cambrige, Mass.: M.I.T. Pres. Max, B. Generalized symbols and their applications in design (H. Xu Trans.). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. Melchuk, I. A. (1974). Experience of the Linguistic model theory “Sense-text”. Semantics, syntax. Moscow: Science. Melnikov, G. P. (1978). Systemology and Linguistic aspects of cybernetics. Moscow: Soviet Radio. Meng, H. (1999). Expression principle of signs. Qingdao: China Ocean University Press. Meng, H. (2014). Cultural symbol pedigree dominated by Chinese characters. Jinan: Shandong Education Press. Meng, D. (2000). Food culture
language
symbol interpretation. Jiangsu Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (1). Meng, H. (1997). Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (2). Meng H. (1998). Motivational text and arbitrary text. Chinese Development Newsletter, (56). Meng, J. (2000). Culture
translation
pragmatic equivalence: Application of semiotics in translation. Chinese Science & Technology Translators Journal, (1). Merleau-Ponty. In Signs. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Uiversity Press, 1964. Metz, C. (1974). Film language. Oxford: Oxford Uiversity Press. Morris, C. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Morris, C. (1946). Sings, language and behavior. New York: Braziller. Morris, C. (1971). Writings on the general theory of signs. The Hague: Mouton. Morris, C. (2011). Signs language and behavior (L. Luo & Y. Zhou, Trans.). Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Press. Mouning, G. (1985). Semiotics Praxis. New York: Plemun Press. Neklyudov S. Y. (Ed). (1998). Moscow-Tartu semiotic school. In History, memories, reflections. School of Languages of Russian culture. Newmeyer, F. J. (1998). Language form and language function. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT press. Newmeyer, F. J. (1983). Grammatical theory, its limits and its possibilities. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press. Ni, B., & Gu, B. (1991). Synonymous transformation of russian sentences—methods and means. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House. Ni, B., & Gu, B. (Eds). (1995). Russian semantics. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Nichols, J. (1984). Functional theories of grammar. Cambridge, MT: The MIT, Press. Nie, Z. (1998). Three questions about the course in general Linguistics. Journal of Daqing College, (3). Nikitin, M. V. (1997). Boundaries of semiotics. Topics in the study of language. Moscow, (1). Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (2000). The meaning of meaning (B. Renli et al, Trans.). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (2000). The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism (R. Bai & Q. Guo Trans.). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. Ogden, C., & Richards I. (1946). The meaning of meaning. London: Routledge.

References

387

Paducheva, E. V. (1979). Denotative status of the nominal group and its reflection in the sense of sentence. Scientific and technical information. Ser. 2. Paducheva, E. V. (1985). Statement and its correlation with reality. Moscow: Science. Panvo, E. E. (1991). Sign semiology and language (Z. Wang, Trans.). Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company. Parret, H. (1971). Language and discourse. The Hague: Mouton. Parret, H. (1980). Contexts of understanding. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Parret, H. (1983a). Semiotics & pramgmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Parret, H. (1983b). On believing: Epistemological and semiotic approaches. Berlin: Gruyter. Pedersen, H. (1931). Linguistic science in the nineteenth century: Methods and results. Cambridge: Havard University Press. Peirce, C. S. (1958). Collected papers. Cambrige: Harvard University Press. Peirce, C. S. (2014). On signs (X. Zhhao, Trans.). Chengdu: Sichuan University Press. Peirce, C. S. (1931). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Selections. In R. E. Innis (ed.), Semiotics: an introductory. Anthropology Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Pelt. J. (1993). On the concept of semiotics. Journal of Hubei University (Philosophy and Social Science), (6). Pelt, J. (1994). Theoretical basis of semiology (Z. Zhu, Trans.). Journal of Hubei University (Philosophy and Social Science), (2). Pesonen, P. (1997). Semiotics of a city: the myth of St. Petersburg In Andrey Bely’s novel Peterburg. Pesonen P. Teкcты жизни и иcкyccтвa [Texts of life and art]. Helsinki. Pesonen, P. (1997). Teкcты жизни и иcкyccтвa [Texts of life and art]. Helsinki. Petofi, J. (1979 & 1982). Texts versus sentence (Vol. 1–2). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Pettit, P. (1976). The concept of structuralism. London: Gill and Macmillan. Pi, H. (1992). Theoretical levels of Saussure’s view of language. Journal of Wuhan University, (2). Pi, H. (1994). Saussure’s fundamental principles of Linguistics. Journal of Wuhan University, (4). Piaget, J. (1968). Structuralism. (Le Sturcturalisme. Paris: P. U. F., 1968) (C. Maschler, Trans. & Ed.). London: Routledge & Kegal Paul, 1971. Plyukhanova, M. B. (1989). Text-culture-semiotics of narrative. Tartu: University of Tartu. Pocheptsov, G. (1998a). History of Russian semiotics. Moscow: Labyrinth. Pocheptsov, G. (1998b). History of Russian semiotics before and after 1917. Moscow: Labyrinth. Poller, R. (1995). Semiotic features of literary portraits of characters in Chinese classical literature (F. Du, Trans.). Southern Cultural Forum, (2). Polyakov, M. Y. (Ed) (1992). Structure-symbol literature and art: Methodological system and controversy (J. Tong (Пoлякoв M.Я.)Trans.). Beijing: Culture and Art Publishing House. Portis-Winner, I. (1987). Semiotics of culture. In The strange intruder. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Portis-Winner, I. (1990). Anthropology and semiotics. In W. Kock (Ed.), Semiocs in the individual science, Part II. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Posner, R. (1982). Rational discourse & poetic communication. The Hague: Mouton. Posner, R., et al. (1992). A handbook of the sign: Theoretic foundations of nature and culture. The Hague: Mouton. Qi, L. (2013). Film semiotics. Shanghai: Orient Publishing Center. Qi, Q. (1998). Reflections on symbolic culture and semiotics. Ethno-National Studies Information, (1). Qi, X. (1993). An argument in favor of semiotic aesthetics. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), (3). Qi, X. (1994). Semiotic features and interpretation of biographies in records of the historian. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), (1). Qi, X. (1995). The openness and suitability of the study of signs meaning—starting with the concept of signs is a concept hroup. Journal of Shaanxi Normal University, (3). Qi, X. (1999). On the transformation rules of artistic signs. In Z. Chen & J. Liu (Eds.), New horizons in language and semiotics in China. Chengdu: Sichuan Science and Technology Press.

388

References

Qi, X. (2002a). The study on ideological semeiology of Bakhtin. In Semiotic Studies. Beijing: Military Translation Press. Qi, X. (2002b). Intentional signs and cultural logics. In Semiotic Studies. Beijing: Military Translation Press. Qi, Y. (1983). Language levels and language unites. Journal of Foreign Languages, (2). Qi, Y. (Ed.). (1985). Introduction to linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Qi, Y. (1995). New Discoveries to the studies on Saussure. Journal of Foreign Languages, (6). Qi, Y., & Xie, T. (1983). From the study of language system to the study of language use. Foreign Language and Literature Teaching,(2). Qian, G. (1991). Limitations of language signs and pragmatics. Foreign Languages Research, (4). Qian, J. (1996a). Recent and current situation of the prague school. Foreign Linguistics, (4). Qian, J. (1996b). Synchrony and diachrony—one of theoretical studies of the prague school. Foreign Language Research, (2). Qian, Z. (1998). Theory can be evergreen—On Bakhtin’s significance. In The complete works of Bakhtin (Chinese Version) (Vol. I). Shijiazhuang: Hebei Education Press. Quine, W. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press. Rao, Z. (2000). Signs, initial writings and letters—Chinese character tree. Shanghai: Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House. Rao, G. (2014). Semiotics of Advertising [M]. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press. Ren, Y. (1997). Signifier and signified: On semiotic characteristics of poetic language. Foreign Literature Studies, (2). Ricoeur, P. (1977). The rule of metaphor (C. Robert, Trans.). Toronton: University of Toronto Press. Riffatere, M. (1978). Semiotics of poetry. Bloomington: Indiana Uiversity Press. Robins, R. H. (1979). A short history of Linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Longman. Robins, R. H. (1980). General Linguistics: An introductory survey (3rd ed.). London: Longman. Rozhdestvensky, Y. S. (1967). Semiotics and Eastern languages. Moscow: Science. Ruesch, J. (1972). Semiotic approaches to human relations. The Hague: Mouton. Russell, B. (1940). An inquiry into meaning and truth. Paris: Boccard. Sakamoto, H. (1990a) The history of semiotics and its rapid development at the end of the century (L. Zhang, Trans.). Logic and Language Learning, (1). Sakamoto, H. (1990b). On the problem of symbol field in epistemology (L. Zhang, Trans.). Logic and Language Learning, (2). Samoyault, T. (2003). Intertextuality (S. Wei, Trans.). Tianjin: Tianjin People’s Publishing House. Sampson, G. (1981). Schools of Linguistics (2nd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Sanders, C. (1983). Formation of Saussure’s Linguistic thoughts. In Teaching research (L. Pan, Trans.).. Sapir, E. (1955). Language: An introduction to the study of speech (1st ed. 1922). New York/London: Harvest Books. Sapir, E. (1964). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. Beijing: The Commercial Press. Saussure. (1980). Course in general Linguistics (M. Gao, Trans.). Beijing: The Commercial Press. Scholes, R. (1988). Semiotics and interpretation (D. Tan. Trans.). Shenyang: Chunfeng Literature and Art Press House. Searl, J. (1969). Speech act. Cambridge: CUP. Sebeok, T. A. (1960). Style in language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Sebeok, T. A. (1969). Approaches to semiotics. The Hague: Mouton. Sebeok, T. A. (1976). Contributions to the doctrine of signs. Bloomington: Indiana Uiversity Press. Sebeok, T. A. (1986). The semiotics sphere. New York: Plenum. Sebeok, T. A. (1988). Semiotics in education. Claremont, CA: Claremont. Sebeok, T. A. (1991a). Semiotics in the United States. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

References

389

Sebeok, T. A. (1991b). A Sign is just a sign. Bloomington: Indiana University. Sebeok, T. A. (1992). Biosemiotics. Berlin; New York. Sebeok, T. A., & Umiker-Sebeok, J. (1991). You know my method: A juxtaposition of Charles S. Peirce and Sherlock Holmes (Q. Yi & L. Chang). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. Semiotics of behavior: Nikolai Chernyshevsky—a man in the era of realism. Moscow: New Literary Review, 1997. (Translated from English). Semiotics and Informatics. Vol. 6/Vol. 35/Vol. 36. Moscow. School of “Languages of Russian culture” “Russian dictionaries”. 1975/1997/1998. Shao, J. (1991). On three major schools of Chinese cultural linguistics. Chinese Language Learning, (2). Shaumjan, S. (1971). Principles of structural Linguistics. Shelyakin, M. (1978). Semantics of nomination and semiotics of oral speech: Linguistic semantics and semiotics. Tartu: University of Tartu. Shelyakin, M. (1979). Semiotics of oral speech: Linguistic semantics and semiotics. Tartu: University of Tartu. Shen, X. (2001). Chinese grammar. Nanjing: Jiangsu Education Publishing House. Shen, J. (1991). Halliday’s functional grammar theory and his view of language. Journal of Foreign Languages, (3). Shen, J. (1993). Iconicity in syntax. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (1). Shen, J. (1997). Markedness patterns in typology. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (1). Shen, S. (1996). On the reference.Modern Foreign Languages, (2). Shi, C. (1993). From Saussure to Bloomfield. Journal of East China Normal University, (3). Shi, J. (1997). The opposition principle in Linguistic studies. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (2). Shi, G. (2002). Fuzzy Linguistics from the perspective of Linguistic semiotics. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Shu, G. (1999). Judicial openness changes from the theater to square: From the perspective of semantics. Tribune of Political Science and Law, (3). Shukman, A. (1977). Jurij Lotman and the semiotics of culture, Russian Literature (Vol. 5, № 1). Amsterdam. Shukman, A. (1984). The Semiotics of Russian Culture. Michigan U pr. Si, L. (2002). Interpreting sound changes in terms of symbolic dynamics theory. Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Simone, R. (1994). Iconicity in language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Solomonick, A. (1992). Language as a sign system. Moscow: Science. Solomonik, A. (1995). Semiotics and linguistics. Moscow: Young Guard. Song, C. (1999). A semiotic analysis of the brief introduction of a dream of red mansions. A Dream of Red Mansions, (2). Stepanova, Y. S. (Ed). (1983a). Semiotics. Moscow: Rainbow. Stepanov, Y. S. (Ed). (1983b). 3rd introductory article and semiotics. Moscow: Rainbow. (Translated from English, French and Spanish). Stepanov, Y. S. (1998). Semiotics (Vols. 1–2). Blagoveshchensk: Publisher Named after Jan Niecisław Baudouin de Courtenay. Sui, R. (1994). Semiotic translation theory and cultural translatology. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching,(Supplement). Sun, H. (1999). A study of subjunctive mood: Markedness and types. Journal of Foreign Languages, (5). Suo, Z. (1982). Ferdinand De Saussure’s theory of Linguistic value. Journal of Xinjiang University, (2). Suo, Z. (1994). Saussure and his course in general Linguistics. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (2). Suo, Z. (1995). The principle of arbitrariness of Saussure’s Linguistic signs is correct. Applied Linguistics, (2).

390

References

Tan, D. (1999) On Saussure’s theory of Linguistic signs. Academic Exchange, (3). Tan, D. (2000). A psycholinguistic analysis of code-switching. Foreign Language Research, (2). Tang, S. (1992). Principles of ideography. Hefei: China University of Science and Technology Press. Tang, G. (1995). Implications of semiotics for translation. Journal of Sichuan Institute of Foreign Languages, (4). Tang, Z. (1996). Semiology and “color words” in transcultural communication. Journal of Shenzhen University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), (3). Tang, X., & Zhu, D. (2012). Semiotics fields. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press. Tang, Y., & Xu, M. (1997). On the inequality of news dissemination and reception: A semiotic interpretation. International Press, (6). Todorov, T. (1999). The Theory of the symbol. Moscow: Intellectual book house. Todorov, T. (2001). Mikhail Bakhtin: The dialogical principle (Z. Jiang & P Zhang, Trans.). Tianjin: Baihua Literature and Art Press House. Todorow, T. (1967). Litterature et signification. Paris: Librairie Larousse. Todorowm, T. (1977). Theories du Symbole. Paris: Seui. Toporov, V. N. (1997). Space and text. In From the works of the Moscow semiotic circle. Moscow. Torop, P. H. (Ed). (1992). Semiotics and history. Tartu: University of Tartu. Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1969). Grundzuge der Phonologie. TCLP, 1939. [French trans.: Principes de phonologie, 1949; Engl. trans. Principles of Phonology]. Tu, Y. (2011). Preliminary examination of Saussure’s manuscripts. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House. Tu, D. (1996). On the function of symbols. Tianfu New Theory, (4). Tu, J. (Ed). (2006). Selected works of pierce (J. Tu & Z. Zhou, Trans.). Beijing: Social Science Literature Publishing House. Ufimtseva, A. A. (1974). Types of verbal signs. Moscow: Science. Uldall, H. (1967). Outline of Glossematics. Nordik. Uspensky, B. A. (1962). About semiotics of art. In Symposium on the structural study of sign systems. Moscow: Soviet Academy of Sciences. Uspensky, B. A. (1969). Semiotic problems of style in linguistic exegesis. In Works on sign systems. Tartu: University of Tartu. Uspensky, B. A. (1994a). On the problem of genesis of the Tartu-Moscow semiotic school. Moscow: Gnosis Lotman Y.M. Uspensky, B. A. (1994a). Selected works (Volume 1). Semiotics of history. In Semiotics of culture. Moscow: Gnosis. Uspensky, B. A. (1995a). Semiotics of art. Moscow: School of Languages of Russian Culture. Uspensky, B.A. (1995b). Semiotics of the icon. In Semiotics of art. Moscow: Soviet Academy of Sciences. Vachek, J. (1966). A prague school reader in Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Handbook of discourse analysis, V. 1-4[M]. Harcourt. Vartazaryan, S. R. (Ed). (1981). Semiotics and communication problems. In Collection of articles. Yerevan: Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR. Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold. Vinogradov, V. V. (1976). Poetics of Russian literature. Moscow: Science. Vinogradov, V. V. (1999). History of words. Moscow: Russian Language Institute. Vinokur, G. O. (1976). On symbolism and scientific poetics in Excerpts of theoretical literature. Tartu: University of Tartu. Wan, M. (1993). Re-exploration of marked center. Journal of Xiangtan University, (4). Wang, A. (1998). On the function of marking new information. Journal of Tian Zhong, (4). Wang, B. (2002) Language study: Returning of the historic approach. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Wang, D. (1987a). A survey of code-switching. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, (2).

References

391

Wang, D. (1987b). Semantic combination and aggregation. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching, (4). Wang, D. (1992). Scientific semiotics. Shenyang: Liaoning University Press. Wang, D. (1994). Preliminary study on scientific semiotics. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Science Edition), (1). Wang, F. (1981). Analysis of russian discourse structure. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Wang, F. (1984). Russian actual segmentation syntax. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Wang, F. (1989). A preliminary study of Chinese Discourse Linguistics. Beijing: The Commercial Press. Wang, G. (1988). Symbolism. language unit. Meaning. Modern Foreign Languages, (1). Wang, H. (1992). Mysterious symbols in life. Beijing: China Overseas Chinese Publishing Company. Wang, H. (1996). The mystery of symbols: Magic symbols in life. Beijing: China International Broadcasting Press. Wang, J. (1993). Cultural semiotic significance of traditional evolution. Social Science Research, (5). Wang, K. (1997). Pursuing Saussure’s Linguistic thoughts—reading Saussure’s third course of lectures on general Linguistics. Journal of Foreign Languages, (4). Wang, K. (2002). Markedness in language: interpretation and extension. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Wang, L. (1991). Prague school and Markedness theory. Foreign Languages Research, (1). Wang, L. (1992). On Markedness theory. Journal of Foreign Languages, (4). Wang, L. (1993). Subject semiology. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (4). Wang, L. (1995). Starting from introduction to theoretical semiotics. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (2). Wang, L. (2002). Markedness in language: Interpretation and extension. Nanjing: Fifth National Symposium on Language and Semiotics. Wang, M. (1989). Application of semiotic theory in symbolic word analysis. Journal of Foreign Languages, (6). Wang, M. (1990). Phonological and semantic relations of Onomatopoeia. In Russian Teaching and Research Essays (Eighth Series). Wang, M. (1993). Synonymous sentence in modern Russian. Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House. Wang, M. (1994). Semiotics
language
portrait of language and culture. Foreign Languages Research, (4). Wang, M. (1995). Re-understanding of Russian subject. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (4). Wang, M. (1997a). The converse relations of Linguistic signs. Journal of Foreign Languages, (2). Wang, M. (1997b). The hierarchy of Linguistic signs and their relationships. Teaching Russian in China, (3). Wang, M. (1998a). A Linguistic interpretation of pierce’s symbolic thought. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (6). Wang, M. (1998b). Overview Of Russian functional research. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching, Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (9). Wang, M. (1998c). Constraints on paradigm and syntagm. Foreign Language Research, (3). Wang, M. (1999a). Semiotics and Linguistics. Foreign Languages Research, (2). Wang, M. (1999b). Symbolic aesthetics of Zhou Yi. Hefei: Anhui University Press. Wang, M. (1999c). Language and culture towards the 21st century. Beijing: Military Yiwen Publishing House. Wang, M. (2000). Metaphor and metonymy. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (1). Wang, M. (2002). The meaning of Linguistic signs In The Study of Semiotics. Beijing: Military Translation Press.

392

References

Wang, M. (2004). Linguistic semiotics. Beijing: Higher Education Press. Wang, M. (2013). Modern Linguistic semiotics. Beijing: The Commercial Press. Wang, M. (2016). Semiotic spheres and academic philosophy of Chinese semiotics. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, (1). Wang, N. (1996) Semiotic studies toward literature. Free Discourse on Literature, (3). Wang, Q. (1999). Origination of semiotics from modern Chinese literature. The Social Sciences in China, (1). Wang, S. (1994). Semiotics and advertisement language. Journal of Foreign Languages, (6). Wang, W. (1989). Syntax and syntax of formal language. Thinking & Wisdom, (1). Wang, W. (1997). Arbitrariness, collectivity and sociality of Linguistic signs. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching, (4). Wang, X. (1994). Language and cognition. Beijing: China Renmin University Press. Wang, X. (1997). Markedness of negatives. Journal of Foreign Languages, (4). Wang, X. (1998). Saussure’s influence on structuralist criticism. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching, (3). Wang, Y. (1998). Markedness iconicity. Foreign Language Research, (3). Wang, Y. (1999a). On the iconicity of linguistic symbols. Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. Wang, Y. (1999b). Iconicity from sociolinguistics perspective. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University, (2). Wang, Y. (1999c). Filtration iconicity and iconicity of Linguistic signs. Foreign Language Research, 1999. Wang, Y. (2000a). Marked theme and its pragmatic function. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University, (1). Wang, Y. (2000b). A brief history of research on iconicity of Linguistic signs. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching, (3). Wang, Y. (2000c) Redefining the motivation of iconicity of Linguistic signs. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (6). Wang, Y. (2001). Semantic theory and language teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Wang, Y. (2002). Philosophical basis of and dialectical relation between iconicity and arbitrariness. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Wang, Y. (2016). On the development trend of chinese semiotics from three perspective. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, (1). Wang, Z. (2002). Semiotic studies on China’s traditional translation standards. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Wang, B., & Wang, J. (2000). Explanation of translation equivalence on the basis of information theory and semiotics. Shanghai Journal of Translators for Science and Technology, (2). Wang, M., & Li, J. (2002). Semiotic studies. Beijing: Military Yiwen Publishing House. Wang, M., & Song, Y. (2002). The study of semiotics in the last two decades in China. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Wang, D., et al. (2000). Study of words meaning from a semiotic perspective and its teaching enlightenment. Journal of Sichuan Normal University, (3). Wang, W., Li, X., & Li, Z. (1989). Language and logic. Wuhan: Hubei Education Press. Wen, H. (1997). Studies on translation from the semiotic perspective. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching, (4). Wen, H. (2002). My view on arbitrariness and iconicity of Linguistic signs. In The Study of Semiotics. Beijing: Military Translation Press. Wen, X. (2000). On the Distance iconicity of Linguistic Signs. Foreign Language Research, (2). Wen, X. (2002). Semiotic interpretation of metaphor. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Weng, Y. (1990). New advances in choreography of speech in America. Journal of Qiqihar University, (3).

References

393

Wen, X., & Kuang, F. (2002) The spatial system of language: A cognitive account. In The study of semiotics. Beijing: Military Translation Press. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality. In J. B. Carroll (Ed.),. Cambrige, Mass: MIT Press. Winograd, T. (1983). Language as a congnitive process Vol. 1: Syntax. Boston: Addison Wesley. Wollen, P. (1969). Signs and meaning in the cinema. Bloomington: Indianan Uiversity Press. World with and without sounds: Semiotics of sound and speech in the traditional culture of the Slavs. Moscow: Indrik, 1999. Wu, T. (1994). Linguistics is a leading science—on the importance of language and Linguistics. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press. Wu, W. (1997). The semiotic world of advertising. Guangzhou: Guangzhou Publishing House. Wu, Q. (1998). Introduction to semantics. Changsha: Hunan Education Publishing House. Wu, Q. (1997). The evolution of symbolic system: Semiotic origins of characters. Journal of Jianghan University, (5). Wu, Y. (1994). An analysis of Russian ideographic grammar. Russian in China, (2). Wu, T. (1991a) Linguistic typology. Language Planning, (8). Wu, T. (1991b). On the importance of language and parole (I, II). Foreign Languages Research, (3);(4). Wu, T. (1993). Summary of general Linguistics. Higher Education Press. Wu, T. (1994). On the word meaning, denotatum and motivation of word-formation. Modern Foreign Languages, (1). Wu, T., et al. (1995). A further discussion on Markedness theory and language reform. Modern Foreign Languages, (1). Xia, R. (2002). The motivation of artistic symbols in visual poetry. Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Xiang, D. (1999). Saussure’s Linguistic theory and its ideas. Journal of Guiyang University, (3). Xiang, M. (2000). The economic background of Saussurean Linguistics. Journal of Foreign Languages, (2). Xiang, R. (1998). The relationship of semiotics with Linguistics and logics. Journal of Teacher’s College (Social Sciences Edition), (1). Xiao, F. (1989). Philosophical approaches to the study of signs. Beijing: China Renmin University Press. Xie, Y. (1998). Markedness theory and grammatical categories of the english verb. Journal of Foreign Languages, (1). Xin, D. (1985). Trubetzkoy’s view of phonemes. Foreign Language Research, (1). Xin, D. (1993). Review on the course in general Linguistics (Russian Version). Linguistics Abroad, (4). Xiong, X. (2002). On the signified signifier domain. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Xu, A. (1993). Semiotic significance of Xun Zi’s rectification of names. Journal of Hubei University: (Philosophy and Social Science), (S6). Xu, A. (1994). On objects of semiotic studies. Journal of Hubei University: (Philosophy and Social Science), (6). Xu, A. (1998). On the European structuralist legal semiotics. Peking University Law Journal, (4). Xu, C. (2002). A study on semiotics theory of pierce, C.S. on the perspective of perception. In Semiotic studies. Beijing: Military Translation Press. Xu, G. (1983). On Saussure’s two books. Linguistics Abroad, (1). Xu, H. (1996). Exhausting meaning through images: Semiotic interpretation of contemporary product design and its rules. Theory and Modernization, (1). Xu, J. (1999a). Comparison of culture and application of semiotics theory in translation practice. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal, (1). Xu, J. (1999b). Pragmatic functions of Linguistic signs. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (6). Xu, P. (2006). “Image” and “ideogrammic method” (X. Tu, Trans.). Yangtze River Academic, (2).

394

References

Xu, R. (2013). An introduction to I Ching semiotics. Shanghai: Shanghai Library. Xu, S. (1963). Explaining graphs and analyzing characters. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Xu, S. (1980). On language’s synchrony and diachrony. Journal of Xinjiang University, (1). Xu, S. (1983). Research on syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal, (3). Xu, S. (1985). “Markedness” and “unmarkedness” of language. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal, (4). Xu, S. (1984). Language generation. Journal of South China Normal University, (4). Xu, S. (1990). Several issues about the methodology of functional Linguistics studies. In Z. Hu (Ed.)., Language system and function. Beijing: Peking University Press. Xu, S. (1992). Some trends of contemporary Linguistic studies. Foreign Language Education, (4). Xu, S. (1993). Methodology of Linguistics studies. Modern Foreign Languages, (1). Xu, T. (2008). Introduction to the character standard of Chinese grammar. Jinan: Shandong Education Press. Xu, N. (2002). Reflections on dialogism in semiotics. In Semiotics studies. Beijing: Military Translation Press. 05. Xu, Z. (1980). Saussure’s Linguistic theories. Supplement to Fudan Journal. Xu, Z. (1999). Social function and psychology of code-switching. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University, (2). Xu, H., & Wang, W. (1998). Saussure’s Linguistic semiotics and its influence on semantic theory. Foreign Languages Research, (3). Yan, C. (1997). A brief introduction to functionalism Linguistics. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Language, (6). Yang, C. (1986). Fillmore’s case grammar (Vol. I; Vol. II; Vol. III). Linguistics Abroad, (1; 2; 3). Yan, C. (2000). Exploration on Linguistic motivation. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Language, (6). Yan, L. (1982). Semiotic language and code. Foreign Language Education, (2). Yang, C. (1989). Artistic signs and explanation. Beijing: People’s Literature Publishing House. Yang, J. (2000). A kind of semiotics theory and its function to advertisements. Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities (Philosophy and Social Science Edition), (8). Yang, M. (1986). Saussure’s theory of synchronic Linguistics (Vol. I; Vol. II). Journal of Jimei Teachers College, (2; 3). Yang, S. (1992). Context and sign field. Logic and Language Learning, (6). Yang, X. (1993). Rhetoric semiotics. Harbin: Heilongjiang Education Press. Yang, X. (1994a). Saussure’s Linguistic semiotics. In The First Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Yang, X. (1994b). Comment on Saussure’s Arbitrary view of Linguistic signs. Journal of Foreign Languages, (6). Yang, X. (1996). Saussure’s Langue and Parole theory. Shandong Foreign Languages Journal, (3). Yang, X. (1998). Two interpretations of metaphor. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (10). Yang, X. (1999). An analysis of the Linguistic philosophy of Mikhail Bakhtin. Journal of PLA Foreign Languages University, (2). Yang, X. (2000). Integration of the sentence meaning. Beijing: Foreign Studies University, Doctoral Dissertation. Yang, Z. (1992). On the code-switching of written languages. Modern Foreign Languages, (1). Yang, Z, et al. (1990). A review of code-switching. Journal of Hunan University, (6). Yang, Z., & Yang, S. (1992). Research on linear characteristics of Linguistic signs. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (1). Yao, X. (1993). German origin of Saussure’s Linguistic theories. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (3). Ye, J. (1994). On the concept of Markedness. Foreign Languages in Fujian, (4). Ye, Q. (2002). Semiotization and reading range. In Research on semiotics. Beijing: Military Translation Press.

References

395

Yi, M. (2002). Semiological bases for building universal semantic code model. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Yu, H. (1994). Study on the arbitrariness and motivation of Linguistic signs. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (5). Yu, R. (1990). Later theories of cases in grammar. Journal of Foreign Languages, (1). Yu, X. (1998). Arbitrariness and motivation of Linguistics signs from the perspectives of the hierarchical theory of signs. Foreign Language in Fujian, (3). Yu, Z. (2007). Semiotics research on communications. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press. Yu, J., & Ye, S. (1988). Signs: Language and art. Shanghai: Shanghai People Press. Yu, R. (1992). Psychological and neurological foundation of sparadigmatic relations and syntagmatic relations. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal, (3). Yuan, Y. (1994). Seeking similarities from differences: A review of the first biennial conference of the Chinese Association for language and semiotic studies. Journal of Foreign Languages, (6). Yuan, Y. (1998). Comparison between the code of language message and the code of bioinformation. Contemporary Linguistics, (2). Yuan, Z., & He, X. (1999). On the debate between Wangbi and Ou Yangjian: A further comment on the semiotic characteristics of Chinese culture. Journal of Southwest China Normal University (Philosophy & Social Sciences Edition), (2). Yue, Y. (1993). The metaphorical features of Chinese character semiotics. Thinking & Wisdom, (6). Zeng, X., & Liu, Z. (1999). logics and semiotics. Journal of Changsha University of Electric Power (Social Sciences Edition), (1). Zhai, C. (1990). A description of the forms of grammar, semantics and pragmatics. Thinking & Wisdom, (6). Zhang, B. (2014). Social semiotics of culture. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press. Zhang, D. (1997). A study on taking Linguistic signs as the basic unit of analysis in Linguistics. Journal of Foreign Languages, (4). Zhang, D. (1994). Linguistic signs and their foregrounding. Journal of Foreign Languages, (6). Zhang, F. (1999). A re-evaluation on the Markedness theory. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, (6). Zhang, G. (1993). On language and style of Zhou Zuoren’s proses and essays: A semiotic approach. Journal of Shandong Normal University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), (2). Zhang, G. (1995). Some thoughts on semiotic researches at home and abroad. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (5). Zhang, H. An essay on subject. Russian Teaching and Research. Zhang, J. (Ed). (1983). Main methods and approaches in foreign language teaching abroad. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press. Zhang, J. (1992). On the Markedness theory of the prague school. Journal of Foreign Languages, (4). Zhang, J. (1993). Markedness and antonymy. Journal of Foreign Languages, (3). Zhang, J. (1996). The appreciation of english advertisements from the perspective of language, signs and sentence patterns. Journal of Tianzhong, (3). Zhang, K. (2002). Motivations for derived meanings of Linguistic signs. In Research on semiotics. Beijing: Military Translation Press Zhang, L. (1999). Comments on Peirce’s semiotic theory. Journal of Yangzhou University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), (1). Zhang, S. (1992). An Exploration of the structure of word signs. Shandong: Shandong Education Press. Zhang, S. (1999). The studies in Saussure in China. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (3). Zhang, S. (2004). A study on arbitrariness of Linguistic signs—an exploration of Saussure’s Linguistic philosophical thoughts. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Zhang, W. (1995). The study and function of semiotics. Journal of Weinan Teachers College (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), (3).

396

References

Zhang, X. (1992). The application of signs in today’s society. Journal of Nanjing University (Foreign Language and Literature Studies), Supplement. Zhang, X. (1996). The semiologist and novelist: [The name of the rose]. Reading, (11). Zhang, X. (1998). Translation from the perspectives of semiotics. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (5). Zhang, Y. (1988). Symbolic structure cultural differences interlingual translation. Chinese Translators Journal, (1). Zhang, Y. (1993a). The interpretation process of discourses and its signs. Journal of Foreign Languages, (5). Zhang, Y. (1993b). The process of semiotic interpretation in discourse comprehension—thinking about semiotic principles, discourse studies and foreign language teaching. Jiangsu Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (1). Zhang, Z. (2002). Semiology and the understanding of literary works. In Semiotic studies. Beijing: Military Translation Press. Zhang, A., & Guo, X. (2002). The theoretical foundation and application of social semiotics. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Zhang, H., & Sun, M. (1998). A review of S. Shaumyan’s theory of Linguistic semiotics. Journal of Weinan Teachers College (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), (6). Zhang, S., & Wang, K. (1997). Comparison and interpretation of Saussure’s two textbooks. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (3). Zhang, S., & Sun J. (2002). Relationships between iconicity of Linguistic symbols and iconicity of english words. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Zhang, Y., & Hu, Y. (1997). The alienation theory from the perspective of semiotic. Journal of Changwei Teachers College, (3). Zhang, Z., & Li, S. (1990). Static and dynamic research on code choice and code switching in Western Linguistics. Journal of Foreign Languages, (4). Zhao, L. (1999). Elegance and refinement: Semiotic interpretation and transplant evaluation. Journal of Yancheng Teachers University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), (2). Zhao, M. (1999). On language symbols, language situations and language functions. Journal of Xuzhou Normal University, (2). Zhao, R. (2002). Lotman and his cultural semiotic theory. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Zhao, Y. (1990). Literary semiotics. Beijing: China Federation of Literary and Art Circles Publishing House. Zhao, Y. (2011). Semiotics: Principles and problems. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press. Zhao, Y. (2014). Selected works on semiotics. Tianjin: Baihua Literature and Art Publishing House. Zhao, Y. (2002). Dialectics of the iconicity and arbitrariness problem of Linguistic signs. In Nanjing: The Fifth Biennial Conference of the Chinese Association for Language and Semiotic Studies. Zhao, J., & Shu, M. (2008). CSSCI-based h-index of journal of library science in China and measurement of its core authors. Journal of Library Science in China, (2). Zhao, X., & Xing, Z. (2000). Semiotic meaning in translation. Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), (05). Zheng, W. (2007). Study on the theory of cultural semiosphere. Wuhan: Wuhan University Press. Zheng, W. (1988). The limit of translation equivalence from a semiotic perspective. Chinese Translators Journal, (1). Zhinkin, N. I. (1998). Language-parole-creativity: Research on semiotics, psycholinguistics, poetics. Moscow: Labyrinth. Zhirmunsky, V. (1975). Theory of verse. Leningrad: Soviet Writer.

References

397

Zhou, G. (2002). Sign—Linguistic signs or discourse signals. In Semiotic studies. Beijing: Military Translation Press. 05. Zhou, H. (2000). Analysis of metaphorization from the semiotic perspective. Foreign Languages in Fujian, (2). Zhou, J. (1996). Aristotle on symbols, references and semantic interpretations. Journal of Xiangtan Normal University, (1). Zhou, Q. (1999). Controversy and enlightenment on Saussure’s principle of arbitrariness of Linguistic signs. Journal of Nanjing Normal University, (1). Zhou, Q. (2011). Chinese semiotics. Shanghai: Orient Publishing Center. Zhou, W. (1994). The semiotic nature of Yi. Philosophical Trends, (suppl.). Zhou, X. (1994). A review of western modern semiology aesthetics. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University, (1). Zhou, X. (1995). Symbolic aesthetics in modern poetry. Chengdu: Chengdu Press. Zhou, Z. An analysis of the origin of modern semiotic theory. Modern Philosophy, (3). Zhu, D. (2014). Semiotic thinking in Pre-Qin philosophy. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press. Zhu, Q. (1997). Analysis of Gongsun long’s designation of things with semiotics. Academic Research, (2). Zhu, R. (1989). Linguistic pairs. Foreign Language Education, (3). Zhu, W. (1994). Codeswitching and Markedness model-a review of social motivations for codeswitching: evidence from Africa. Foreign Linguistics, (2). Zhu Y. (1990). Pluralism in Linguistics. In Z. Hu (Ed.), Language system and function. Beijing: Peking University Press. Zhu, J., & Li, J. (1993). The secret of minority color language: From totem symbols to social symbols. Kunming: Yunnan People’s Publishing House. Zhuang, H. (1995). On body language and its semiotic functions. Foreign Language and Their Teaching, (5). Zolotova, G. M. (1973). Essay of functional syntax. Moscow: Science. Zong, Z. (2014). Ludology: A semio-narratological study. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press. Zvegintsev, V. A. (1962). Essays on General Linguistics. Moscow: Moscow State University.