Seminar 5

Saussurean semiotics; Peircean semiotics; intertextuality; textual divisions: the

syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes
1. Comment on semiotics as a field of research (Ferdinand de Saussure and
Charles Sanders Peirces contribution).
2. The following article gives a review of Umberto Ecos and Louis Hjelmslevs
semiotic theories. Comment on the similarities and differences of these theories.
Compare them with Saussures and Peirces views.
Umberto Ecos A Theory of Semiotics by Alex Scott
Umberto Ecos A Theory of Semiotics (1976) is a critique of the theory that the meaning of
signals or signs is determined by the objects (i.e. things or events) to which they refer, and is a
rejection of the notion that iconic signs must be likenesses of their objects. Eco argues that the
meaning of signals or signs is not necessarily determined by whether they refer to actual objects,
and he explains that the existence of objects to which signals or signs may correspond is not a
necessary condition for their signification. Eco also criticizes the notion that a typology of signs
may clarify the nature of sign function, arguing instead that any typology of signs may fail to
explain how different kinds of signs may share the same modes of production. Eco thus argues that
the correct approach to developing a unified semiotic theory should not be to propose a typology of
signs but should be to provide a method of investigating how sign-vehicles may function as signs
and to provide a means of understanding how sign-vehicles may be produced and interpreted.
According to Eco, a general semiotic theory should include not only a theory of how codes
may establish rules for systems of signification but a theory of how signs may be produced and
interpreted. A theory of codes may clarify aspects of signification, while a theory of sign-
production may clarify aspects of communication. Eco defines signification as the semiotic
event whereby a sign stands for something, and he defines communication as the transmission of
information from a source to a destination. Communication is made possible by the existence of a
code, or by a system of signification. Without a code or a system of signification, there is no set of
rules to determine how the expression of signs is to be correlated with their content. The use of a
code or a system of signification in order to correlate the expression and content of signs may be
necessary in order to establish any form of communication.
Eco explains that a theory of sign-production should include not only a theory of
communication but a theory of mentions (i.e. referring acts) and a theory of communicational acts.
A theory of communication may explain how information may be transmitted from a source (or
content-continuum) through a channel (or expression-continuum) to a destination. A theory of
mentions may explain how signs may be used for naming things and for making statements about
actual situations. A theory of communicational acts may explain how a sender may transmit verbal
or non-verbal messages to an addressee.
Eco notes that Hjelmslev (1943) describes semiotics as a study of signs which is itself
analogous to a language and which may therefore be studied by a metasemiotic. A metasemiotic
is a metalanguage which is concerned with the terminology of semiotics. Hjelmslev also makes a
distinction between scientific and non-scientific semiotics, and defines semiology as the study of
non-scientific semiotics. A metasemiology is therefore a scientific metasemiotic which studies
the terminology of semiology.
Eco explains that semiotics may involve many different areas of research, such as:
zoosemiotics (including the study of animal communication), paralinguistics (including the study of
how voice control or vocal qualities may contribute to communication), kinesics and proxemics
(including the study of how physical gestures or postures may contribute to communication), tactile
communication (including the study of how behavior such as a pat on the back or a slap on the
shoulder may function as a mode of communication), visual communication (including the study of
how photographs, drawings, maps, or diagrams may function as modes of communication), medical
semiotics (including the study of medical signs and symptoms), text theory (including the study of
literary texts), and the study of rhetoric, the study of ancient alphabets and secret codes, the study of
formalized languages (including the study of mathematical, logical, or scientific languages), the
study of natural languages (including biological and environmental signs), the study of olfactory
signs, the study of codes of taste, the study of musical codes, the study of systems of objects
(including the study of architecture and of industrial design), the study of cultural codes (including
the study of group and family behavior), and the study of mass communication (including the study
of media such as television, newspapers, magazines, and film).
Eco defines a sign as anything which may be interpreted to stand for (or substitute for)
something. He also accepts Hjelmslevs definition of a sign as an entity which has both an
expression-form and a content-form and which is established by the interdependence between
them. A sign is a unit consisting of an expression and a content which are connected with each other
by a mutual correlation or sign function.
According to Hjelmslev (1943), a sign function is the interdependence between the
expression and content of a sign. A sign cannot have a content without being an expression and
cannot be an expression without having a content. The expression of a sign presupposes its content,
and the content of a sign presupposes its expression. Expression and content are the two functives
(or terminals) of every sign-function.
Hjelmslev explains that the meaning of a sign should to be distinguished from the content of
the sign, because a sign may in some cases be lacking in content without being lacking in meaning,
and may in other cases be lacking in meaning despite not being lacking in content.
Eco defines a signal as a unit of information which may be transmitted from a source to a
destination, and argues that a signal may not necessarily be a communicational act. A signal may
be a stimulus to a particular response, but may not necessarily be intended to mean anything. Thus,
a signal may not necessarily be a sign, and may not necessarily have any signification.
Eco also explains that a code is a rule which correlates elements of an expression-plane
with elements of a content-plane. A code is an instrument for connecting the expression of signs
to their content, and is a correlational device which generates sign-functions. A code is also a
rule for sign production and interpretation, in that it determines how the expression and content of
signs are to be correlated.
Eco argues that any given sign must be an element of an expression-plane, and must
therefore be conventionally correlated to one or more elements of a content-plane. A sign cannot
belong to an expression-plane without belonging to a content-plane, and cannot belong to a content-
plane without belonging to an expression-plane. However, a sign may in some cases belong to more
than one expression-plane, and may in some cases belong to more than one content-plane. The
expression of a sign may have more than one content, and the content of a sign may have more than
one expression.
Eco explains that a system of signification may include not only syntactic rules (i.e. rules for
the combination of signs) but semantic rules (i.e. rules for the signification of signs) and behavioral
rules (i.e. rules for the coordination of syntactic and semantic rules, so that proper understanding of
a given array of signs may produce a corresponding behavioral response). Thus, an s-code (or
code as system) is a system of rules which has syntactic, semantic, and behavioral applications. An
s-code differs from an ordinary code, in that an s-code is a system of signification, while a
code is merely a correlational device for producing or interpreting signs. A code may correlate
the items of different information systems or the items of different s-codes.
Eco argues that the referential fallacy in classical theories of semiotics is the false
assumption that the meaning of a sign-vehicle is determined by its referent (i.e. by the object to
which the sign-vehicle refers). The extensional fallacy in classical theories of semiotics is the false
assumption that the meaning of a sign-vehicle is determined by its extension (i.e. by the class of
objects to which the sign-vehicle refers). According to Eco, both the referential fallacy and the
extensional fallacy may distort a theory of codes by promoting the false assumption that the object
of a sign, or the class of objects to which the sign refers, is a necessary condition for the signs
meaning or signification.
Eco also argues that the content and not the referent of a sign is the location of the signs
meaning. The meaning of a sign is a cultural unit, in that the meaning of every sign is culturally
defined. A cultural unit may be defined as a semantic unit (i.e. a content unit or sememe), in that
it may be analyzed into its elementary semantic components (i.e. its semes or semantic markers).
A cultural unit may also be defined as a syntactic unit (i.e. an expression unit or lexeme), in that
it may be analyzed into its elementary syntactic components (i.e. its syntactic markers).
According to Eco, semantic units may be either categorematic (i.e. having an independent
meaning, and being capable of standing on their own as terms in a categorical proposition) or
syncategorematic (i.e. having no independent meaning, and being incapable of standing on their
own as terms in a categorical proposition). Syncategorematic units must be joined to
categorematic units in order to function as terms in a categorical proposition.
Eco also explains that every semantic unit may be an element of a semantic field. Insofar as
semantic units are cultural units, the semantic field to which a given semantic unit belongs may be
an aspect of the world-vision belonging to a particular culture. The semantic fields of a culture or
society may be either complementary, contradictory, or indifferent to each other.
Eco argues that every cultural unit is an element of a system of other cultural units which
may limit or further define its meaning. Every cultural unit may be an element of more than one
semantic field. Cultural units may also in some cases be ambiguous or equivocal in nature, and
may in some cases be fuzzy concepts. Fuzzy concepts may be sememes which are open to
different readings because of the different meanings which they may have in different situations or
because of the different ways in which they may be combined with other cultural units.
Eco explains that the semantic markers of any given sememe may be either denotative or
connotative. Denotative markers do not rely on a preceding denotation in order to constitute a
'sememe,' but connotative markers rely on a preceding denotation in order to constitute a 'sememe.'
Denotative markers form the content of an expression, but connotative markers form the content of
a sign-function.
Eco also explains that a sign-function may be denotative to the extent that its expression
does not signify the content of another sign-function, but may be connotative to the extent that its
expression signifies the content of another sign-function. To denote is to signify something
without relying on a preceding denotation, but to connote is to rely on a preceding denotation in
order to signify something.
Eco distinguishes between types and tokens as signs which may have different modes of
production. Types may be replicated by tokens, and tokens may be motivated by types.
According to Peirce, a type is a law which is a sign (i.e.a legisign), and a token is an actually
existing thing or event which is a sign. A type is a general rule which acts through a replica (i.e.
a sign which is an individual example of its application), and a token may also be a replica.
According to Eco, a type is an abstract model for a concrete token, and a token is an actual
sign-vehicle which is used for communication. A token is also an individual occurrence of an
expression, and may signify either an expression-type or a content-type. An expression-type is
an element of an expression-plane, while a content-type is an element of a content-plane.
Eco argues that modes of sign-production may be described by a typology according to four
criteria: 1) the amount of physical labor which is necessary in order to produce expressions, 2) the
type-token ratio, 3) the continuum which is to be shaped, and 4) the mode and rate of articulation.
These four criteria may be used to describe both the modes of sign-production by which expressions
are produced and the modes of sign-production by which expression-tokens are correlated with
expression-types orcontent-types.
Eco explains that modes of sign-production which may be defined by the intensity of the
physical labor which they require for the production of sign-expressions include: 1) recognition, 2)
ostension, 3) replication, and 4) invention. Recognition involves a reconstitution of a previous
experience of sign-expressions. Ostension involves a choice of existing or potentially existing sign-
expressions as tokens of expression-types. Replication involves producing expression-tokens
according to the model of already-existing expression-types. Invention involves the production of
completely new sign-expressions.
Eco also explains that type/token ratios may be of two kinds: 1) ratio facilis, and 2) ratio
difficilis. Ratio facilis is a mode of sign-production in which an expression-type is replicated by
an expression token. Ratio difficilis is a mode of sign-production in which a content-type is
correlated with an expression-token.
According to Eco, the replication of types by tokens may occur by means of vectors,
stylizations, combinational units, and pseudo-combinational units. Vectors are markers of a
system of expressions which must be combined with markers of another system of expressions in
order to produce an expression. Stylizations are expression-markers which are correlated to
content-markers by extra-coding, such as overcoding. Combinational units are combinations of
expression-markers which may be correlated with combinations of content-markers. Pseudo-
combinational units are expression-markers which are not correlated with content-markers (and
which therefore have no meaning), but which are nevertheless governed by combinational rules.
Eco explains that the replication of types by means of vectors is a ratio difficilis mode
of sign-production. The replication of types by means of stylizations is a combined ratio
difficilis and ratio facilis mode of sign-production. The replication of types by means of
combinational or pseudo-combinational units is a ratio facilis mode of sign-production.
Ecos theory of codes and theory of modes of sign production provide many insights into the
ways in which the meaning of signs may be culturally defined. He rejects what he calls nave
iconism as a theory which falsely assumes that so-called 'iconic' signs must be similar or analgous
to their objects, and he argues instead that the iconicity of any particular mode of sign-production is
a matter of cultural convention. He explains, however, that to say that the iconicity of any particular
mode of sign-production is a matter of cultural convention is not to say that it is a matter which is
decided upon arbitrarily. To the contrary, the degree of iconicity of any particular expression may
be determined by the degree to which the expression is correlated with its content, and may not be
determined by the degree to which the expression is similar or analogous to some object to which it
may refer. Iconicity may therefore be a property of a particular mode of producing sign-functions,
but may not be a property of any particular kind of sign.
3. Brainstorm some words and signs that have different connotations from their
denotative meanings. List the common uses of these words and signs and discuss
some contexts where they appear in popular culture.
4. Explain the speakers use of different words to refer to the same
phenomenon:
It had all started when he said to me that night in pub in Miltown Malbay, Can you keep a
secret?
I had answered, No. Cannot keep mouth shut. Am famous for lack of discretion.
()
But he didnt care. He needed confessor. I like wearing ladies clothes.
Hadnt known what to say. Settled for, I like wearing ladies clothes too.
Yes, but you are lady.
So you are trannie?
Cross-dresser. [Keyes, Marian. This Charming Man. P.356]
Where can I change? he demanded, back to his mans voice.
Change?
Change into my dress.
Dress?
Yes, my dress! Tapped his briefcase in exasperated fashion.
Oh God. You have trannie clothes in briefcase?
Cross-dressing, cross-dressing, I am sick telling you. [Keyes, M. This Charming Man. P.355]
5. Comment on the means that have made this advertisement effective.