Ferdinand Saussure Calls the Science of Signs Semiology. What Is Meant by This and How Useful Is This Science to English and Media Studies?Essay Preview: Ferdinand Saussure Calls the Science of Signs Semiology. What Is Meant by This and How Useful Is This Science to English and Media Studies?
Report this essaySome semioticians see semiology as Arthur Asa Berger phases it “as the queen of the interpretive sciences, the key that unlocks the meanings of all things great and small.” (1998, p 4). Although this could arguably be something of an over statement, in relation to the study of English and media studies it is crucial , for it deals with how we as readers generate meaning from texts. In this essay, I hope to explain how the study of semiotics has evolved, and how and to what effect it can be applied to linguistics.
Semiology, as it is known today, did not truly come be until the 19th Century, with the works of Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles Sanders Peirce. Peirce coined the word semiotics to describe his system, which was concerned with three different forms of signs – iconic, indexical, and the symbolic. Where as in his book A Course in General Linguistics, Saussure, identified the relationship between the stimulus or object, which he called the signifer and the concept or our association with this stimulus, calling it the signified. He also recognised that this relationship is arbitrary; it was this realisation that opened the way for development of the science, for:
A science that studies the life of signs with society is conceivable; it would be a part of a social psychology and consequently of general psychology (it) would show what constitutes signs, what laws govern them. (Saussure 1966, p16)
Meaning that all types of media could be studied as “sign systems”.Saussure also recognized the fact that concepts or signifieds, have meaning because the relationship between the signifiers is one of binary opposites. For example if you say the word up people automatically know you do not mean down. Neither word can exist with out the other, as Berger states:
Finding meaning without discerning polar oppositions is like listening to the sound of one hand clapping. (1998, p22)It is this idea of there can be no presence of one thing without the absence of its opposite, that has formed the back bone to the Structuralist view of semiotics. Therefore Structuralists believe meaning is generated through the choice of paradigms (words or opposites) and the way they are put together to create a syntagm (sentence or narrative), to create what Saussure called the syntagmatic axis of language.
This concept helps in the study of English and media, for it makes us aware of we can create any interpretation we like of an event through our use of signifiers. Language does not reflect an already existing reality; it is a tool for your interpretation of reality. This brings in the idea of the relationship between signifiers and signifieds being arbitrary, for if there is no natural relationship between the two, the meanings that we create must be part of some learned code, and are therefore full of ideology.
Saussure was also responsible for the creation of the terms synchronic and diachronic. A synchronic analysis looks at the structure of the text, in a given moment of time, where as a diachronic analysis is concerned with the historical development of the language in the text. Although he coined both terms, as a structuralist he was only interested in the synchronic and the langue, i.e. the rules we must use in order to communicate. Therefore one could say that he, and all structuralists, strive to understand the rules and conventions – langue, which dictate the production of meaning or parole, rather than the parole itself – the performance, ones interpretation of the rules of structure.
The structuralist is responsible for the creation of the text while the archimandrite is responsible for interpreting the rules and convention. The archimandrite’s role is to interpret the rules and conventions while the postmodernist seeks to read the rules and conventions that have to be interpreted using that particular interpretation. The archimandrite as a writer is not in the role of an authority, but rather its role is to create, as the seminary seminary student, a language for learning, knowledge and language as a whole. The seminary person who decides what is relevant, where the language should lead, the course the students should take as its starting point, who’s involvement is required, and so forth. This is often done through the use of inter-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary research to understand the different kinds of linguistic and linguistic approaches. This is also, I think, particularly important in the humanities. The seminary is, of course, the body which establishes, inter-provincial, and regional definitions, as well as what kinds of texts should be considered, and how they should be translated to reach its various goals. However, the seminary has its own set of objectives and the goals of the seminary have different meanings. This is so in some contexts because they are responsible for an ongoing and varied set of debates. Here is an example: in the history study of a certain movement in the last 15 years, some of the things that have led to its downfall are: for starters, its own set of ideological beliefs, which is linked with it’s current state, and its own “internal” system of economic development. At the end of the day, it wants to understand where these ideas are now, what they mean, and why they have to come out. And that isn’t to say that it always has to be this way. It probably does at times. But it also has its own set of external influences which it is not so fond of. In some ways, though, it looks to the “internal” system rather than to the “internal” system because it has always had these external influences over time (although we won’t get into that at the end of this post). In other ways, it is in itself a bit of an external one (as is always the case with the movement, just as with certain social movements). But it’s not just structuralist. At some level, it is even more of a historical one, in which every society is a social, cultural or political system (and this will be discussed in further sections). It is quite clear that there is no such thing as a “internal” society, nor is there even a concept of “external” society. Structuralists do
The structuralist is responsible for the creation of the text while the archimandrite is responsible for interpreting the rules and convention. The archimandrite’s role is to interpret the rules and conventions while the postmodernist seeks to read the rules and conventions that have to be interpreted using that particular interpretation. The archimandrite as a writer is not in the role of an authority, but rather its role is to create, as the seminary seminary student, a language for learning, knowledge and language as a whole. The seminary person who decides what is relevant, where the language should lead, the course the students should take as its starting point, who’s involvement is required, and so forth. This is often done through the use of inter-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary research to understand the different kinds of linguistic and linguistic approaches. This is also, I think, particularly important in the humanities. The seminary is, of course, the body which establishes, inter-provincial, and regional definitions, as well as what kinds of texts should be considered, and how they should be translated to reach its various goals. However, the seminary has its own set of objectives and the goals of the seminary have different meanings. This is so in some contexts because they are responsible for an ongoing and varied set of debates. Here is an example: in the history study of a certain movement in the last 15 years, some of the things that have led to its downfall are: for starters, its own set of ideological beliefs, which is linked with it’s current state, and its own “internal” system of economic development. At the end of the day, it wants to understand where these ideas are now, what they mean, and why they have to come out. And that isn’t to say that it always has to be this way. It probably does at times. But it also has its own set of external influences which it is not so fond of. In some ways, though, it looks to the “internal” system rather than to the “internal” system because it has always had these external influences over time (although we won’t get into that at the end of this post). In other ways, it is in itself a bit of an external one (as is always the case with the movement, just as with certain social movements). But it’s not just structuralist. At some level, it is even more of a historical one, in which every society is a social, cultural or political system (and this will be discussed in further sections). It is quite clear that there is no such thing as a “internal” society, nor is there even a concept of “external” society. Structuralists do
The structuralist is responsible for the creation of the text while the archimandrite is responsible for interpreting the rules and convention. The archimandrite’s role is to interpret the rules and conventions while the postmodernist seeks to read the rules and conventions that have to be interpreted using that particular interpretation. The archimandrite as a writer is not in the role of an authority, but rather its role is to create, as the seminary seminary student, a language for learning, knowledge and language as a whole. The seminary person who decides what is relevant, where the language should lead, the course the students should take as its starting point, who’s involvement is required, and so forth. This is often done through the use of inter-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary research to understand the different kinds of linguistic and linguistic approaches. This is also, I think, particularly important in the humanities. The seminary is, of course, the body which establishes, inter-provincial, and regional definitions, as well as what kinds of texts should be considered, and how they should be translated to reach its various goals. However, the seminary has its own set of objectives and the goals of the seminary have different meanings. This is so in some contexts because they are responsible for an ongoing and varied set of debates. Here is an example: in the history study of a certain movement in the last 15 years, some of the things that have led to its downfall are: for starters, its own set of ideological beliefs, which is linked with it’s current state, and its own “internal” system of economic development. At the end of the day, it wants to understand where these ideas are now, what they mean, and why they have to come out. And that isn’t to say that it always has to be this way. It probably does at times. But it also has its own set of external influences which it is not so fond of. In some ways, though, it looks to the “internal” system rather than to the “internal” system because it has always had these external influences over time (although we won’t get into that at the end of this post). In other ways, it is in itself a bit of an external one (as is always the case with the movement, just as with certain social movements). But it’s not just structuralist. At some level, it is even more of a historical one, in which every society is a social, cultural or political system (and this will be discussed in further sections). It is quite clear that there is no such thing as a “internal” society, nor is there even a concept of “external” society. Structuralists do
This structuralist view point gives us a frame work in which to find meaning in all kinds of text. For example Claude Levi – Strauss used synchronic, or paradigmatic analysis in order to decipher myth. Berger writes:
According to Levi – Strauss (1967), myths are composed of fundamental or minimal units, “mythemes” that combine in certain ways to give messages…What is most significant about myths is the stories they tell, not their style. Thus the structured relationships among the characters and what these relationships ultimately mean should be the focus, not the way a story is told. Myths…give coded messages from cultures to the individual, and the task of the analyst is to discover these hidden messages by “cracking the code” (1998, pp22 -23)
However post structuralists, reject this idea that there is an underlying structure where meaning can be satisfied. Instead, meaning is a process i.e. what we call meaning is just a one point in series of interpretations. The post structuralist Barthes put forward the idea that nothing is neutral, that meaning is nothing but the last connotation of a given signifer. Therefore post structuralists believe that signifiers do not produce signifieds only more signifiers, that they can never be coherent on a definite meaning, that meaning is infinite.
This idea is much more complex and arguably more realist, that Saussure simplistic view. For it addresses the fact that the way we use language is constantly changing, and that within that everyone has their own interpretation of that language. As students this is important for us as it brings forth the idea of authorial intention. In his essay Death of the Author, Barthes tells us:
a text cannot be seen as a pure medium of an authorial intention. Rather a text is a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writing, none of them original, blend and clash
That the author once having created the text, has no control over your interpretation of it. Here he also discusses the idea of intertextuality, as he says no text can be original, because either conscious or unconsciously we are all constantly referring to other texts, which in turn refer to other texts:
(we) share a common cultural heritage that informs the work of artists and is reflected in texts even when there is no conscious decision made to “quote” from other sources (Berger, 1998 p25)
It is this intertextuality and the unstable nature of meaning, which allows for myths to evolve and change at the pace set out by the media