Barthes: Intro, Signifier and Signified, Denotation and Connotation

Barthes stresses that at the time he is writing, semiology is a very

underdeveloped area of study, a tentative science. In this science, no
system can signify autonomously. Language must be present, at some level.
In this sense semiology is a sub-discipline of linguistics. It is semiology
which is a part of linguistics. . .it is that part covering the great signifying
unities of discourse.
B. Signifier and Signified
Barthes opens this section with the concept of the sign, a signifying
relationship which is essentially the union of the components signifier and
the signified. Ideas of content and expression are inextricable from this
process.
signifier+signified=sign
however, the sign is more complex than this basic formula. Indeed, it is
more than the mere correlation of a signifier and a signified, but perhaps
more essentially an act of simultaneously cutting out two amorphous
masses. Every element in the semiological relationship has more than one
meaning. Like a sheaf of paper, each possesses a reverse image. Signs,
particularly those with utilitarian, functional origins, are known as signfunctions. Reality and meaning are based on use and function: there is no
reality except when it is intelligible.
The signified in the relationship is defined as the mental representation of a
thing...a concept. It incorporates such elements as practices, techniques,
and ideologies. It is this component of the triadic relationship which triggers
Barthes discussion of metalanguages. Metalanguages are the languages

about languagesthat is, a discourse employed to make sense of another

discourse.
The signifier is a mediator to handle the words, images, and objects in the
sign equation. It is the initial element triggers the process of investing
meaning and thus making a sign. The union of the signifier and signified is
termed signification. This process of making meaning is arbitrary, a product
of social convention. The sign can be interpreted as the value of the
expression, and is a product of exchange and comparison among dissimilar
words and ideas. Barthes closes with an estimate of where he believes
semiology is headed: toward existence as a discipline concerned with the
production of reality, fused with taxonomytermed arthrology, a science of
apportionment.
C.

Denotation

and

Connotation

In this discussion, Barthes revisits the relationship between signifier,

signified and sign. However, in this section, the relation is approached in a
new way, in the relation (R) between expression (E) and content (C),
expressed as ERC. The focus here is on staggered systems of signification,
or those systems in which one or more of the components in the relation
(ERC)

is

expressed

by

relation

all

its

own.

Ex. (ERC) RC, where E=(ERC). The first system lies in the plane of
denotation, and the second (collective), in the plane of connotation; it is
wider and encompasses all the elements. The way I read this (and if I'm
wrong somebody please correct me), denotation stands for the collectively
agreed upon meaning of an image or text--comparable to the signifier-- and
connotation represents the accompanying ideas and concepts--much like the

signified

and

the

ensuing

process

of

signification.

Barthes uses the discussion of denotation and connotation to branch off and
further explore metalanguages, those discourses employed to speak about
and analyze discourses. In this model, a language (in the linguistic sense) is
a first-order language, and the ensuing metalanguage is a second-order
language. The role of the semiologist, then, is to decipher the first-order
language through the lens of the second, but in doing so there is a danger:
just as connotation served as an extension of denotation in the system
above, so too can each subsequent metalanguage serve as a segue into
another and another, a self-sustaining and destructive cycle. As each
language rises, another takes its place, a diachrony of metalanguages, and
each science, including of course semiology, would contain the seeds of its
own death, in the shape of the language destined to speak it" (93).
II.

Analysis

Ill start by saying that a great deal of this was tough to grasp the first time
around. Ive tried to bring out some of the main ideas (or what I perceived
as

the

main

ideas)

in

this

section.

Clearly, the roots of Semiology stem from linguisticsthere is no meaning

which is not designated, and the world of signifieds is none other than that
of language (Barthes 10)but for me the two diverge in their scope:
linguistics is dedicated solely to the study of languages and the various
forms and processes encompassed therein; semiology, on the other hand, is
devoted not only to the verbal, but to all other means of making meaning
that intersect the verbal realm. In some additional reading, I even found
that

there

are

branches

of

semiotics

that

study

animal

behavior

(zoosemiotics), human body language (kinsemics and proxemics), and one

variety that examines communication by olfactory signs. Semiology seems a
literal embodiment of the connotation Barthes is so enamored of (there is
more to meaning than meets the eye; it goes beyond language to engage
the public and the personal to include things like music, gestures objects,
events,

etc.)

It is not difficult to perceive how the ideas of Barthes tie in with the ideas we
have encountered in class to this point. Semiology is concerned with the
interpretation of various cultural texts, and though the discipline is clearly
very structuralist, Im not sure it falls entirely under that paradigm. The
meaning

that

arises

from

the

triadic

relationship

between

signifier/signified/sign is essentially arbitrary, an idea Barthes touches on

the only link between signifier and signified, is a fairly arbitrary (although
inevitable) abstraction (54). This suggests that the meaning someone
invests in a sign is largely socially dictateda word means something
because we collectively allow it to do so. Thus, our experience is dictated by
the pre-approved structure. A good example can be found in Daniel
Chandlers discussion of semiotics, in which he gives the example of an open
sign in a shop window. In this scenario, a passerby would likely invest
meaning in the following way: the signifier, the word open, is mentally
combined with the accompanying signified concept that the shop is open for
business, and these two combine to form the resulting sign, a shop with an
open sign in the window is prepared to exchange with consumers.
My question here concerns the different meanings people may construct.
Say someone outside is wearing a sweater. When I see this, I would see the
signifier, sweater, combined with the signified concept that it is cold outside,
and the sign, that someone is wearing a long-sleeved, heavily woven

garment because it is cold outside. Perhaps, though, it isnt cold. Maybe its
a hot July day and the person wears the sweater because their office airconditioner is too efficient. Maybe the sweater was a gift from a loved one no
longer living and the wearer dons the sweater for sentimental reasons.
Maybe the wearers friend made a bet that the wearer couldnt go an entire
July day wearing a wool sweater. There could be many variations in this
story. My point is simply this: many of the myriad meanings for the wearing
of the sweater are not socially configured; as such, personal experience
seems to motivate the wearing of the sweater, and thus experience here is
no

effect,

but

driving

force.

Isnt

this

culturalist

influence?

?I'm also still working on the idea of the metalanguage and its destructive
potential. The way I read it, a metalangauge is a discourse used to discuss
another discourse and is thereby its destroyer (for example, myth is a
metalanguage for the language in which the myth originates.) So, couldn't,
say, cultural studies be considered a metalanguage because it 's used as a
means to interpret cultural texts? If this is the case, then isn't the discipline
simultaneously

studying

and

destroying

its

object

of

inquiry?

Barthes ideas, though at times a bit difficult, nonetheless fascinate me. Byand-large, his work seems motivated by the relationship between language
(and other modes of signification) and thought, and how the two combine to
make meaning. It unites questions of culture, psychology, reality, and many
others.