“It is… 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 semeîon, “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. Linguistics is only one branch of this general science. The laws which semiology will discover will be laws applicable in linguistics, and linguistics will thus be assigned to a clearly defined place in the field of human knowledge.” (Saussure)


Important Figures in Semiotics

–   Ferdinand de Saussure (founder of linguistics and semiotics) (1857-1913)

–   Charles Sanders Peirce (American philosopher; say his name “purse”) (1839-1914)

–   Roland Barthes (semiotic theorist) (1915-1980)

–   Umberto Eco (author of The Name of the Rose and Foucault’s Pendulum, among others) (1932- )

–   Julia Kristeva (1941- )

–   Claude Lévi-Strauss (anthropologist) (1908-1990)

–   Jacques Lacan (psychoanalyst) (1901-1981)


Definitions of Semiotics


Eco: semiotics is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign

Barthes: semiology aims to take in any system of signs, whatever their substance and limits; images, gestures, musical sounds, objects, and the complex associations of all of these, which form the content of ritual, convention or public entertainment: these constitute, if not languages, at least systems of signification

Saussure: semiology is a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life

Charles Peirce: “semiotic” was the “formal doctrine of signs” which was closely related to Logic. For him, “a sign… is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity.” He declared that “every thought is a sign”

John Sturrock: whereas semantics focuses on what words mean, semiotics is concerned with how signs mean

C. W. Morris (deriving this threefold classification from Peirce): semiotics embraced semantics, along with the other traditional branches of linguistics:

– semantics: the relationship of signs to what they stand for;

– syntactics (or syntax): the formal or structural relations between signs;

– pragmatics: the relation of signs to interpreters

For Morris, semiotics is the umbrella under which semantics, syntax, and pragmatics exist.


Semiotics is important because it can help us not to take “reality” for granted as something having a purely objective existence which is independent of human interpretation. It teaches us that reality is a system of signs. Studying semiotics can assist us to become more aware of reality as a construction and of the roles played by ourselves and others in constructing it. It can help us to realize that information or meaning is not “contained” in the world or in books, computers or audio-visual media. Meaning is not “transmitted” to us – we actively create it according to a complex interplay of codes or conventions of which we are normally unaware. Becoming aware of such codes is both inherently fascinating and intellectually empowering. We learn from semiotics that we live in a world of signs and we have no way of understanding anything except through signs and the codes into which they are organized. Through the study of semiotics we become aware that these signs and codes are normally transparent and disguise our task in “reading” them. Living in a world of increasingly visual signs, we need to learn that even the most “realistic” signs are not what they appear to be. By making more explicit the codes by which signs are interpreted we may perform the valuable semiotic function of “denaturalizing” signs. In defining realities signs serve ideological functions. Deconstructing and contesting the realities of signs can reveal whose realities are privileged and whose are suppressed. The study of signs is the study of the construction and maintenance of reality. To decline such a study is to leave to others the control of the world of meanings which we inhabit.


Criticisms of Semiotic Analysis

–   Other than as “the study of signs” there is relatively little agreement amongst semioticians themselves as to the scope and methodology of semiotics

–   Semiotics is often criticized as “imperialistic,” since some semioticians appear to regard it as concerned with, and applicable to, anything and everything, trespassing on almost every academic discipline.

–   Semioticians do not always make explicit the limitations of their techniques, and semiotics is sometimes uncritically presented as a general-purpose tool.

–   Sometimes semioticians present their analyses as if they were purely objective “scientific” accounts rather than subjective interpretations. Yet few semioticians seem to feel much need to provide empirical evidence for particular interpretations, and much semiotic analysis is loosely impressionistic and highly unsystematic (or alternatively, generates elaborate taxonomies with little evident practical application). In practice, semiotic analysis invariably consists of individual readings. We are seldom presented with the commentaries of several analysts on the same text, to say nothing of evidence of any kind of consensus amongst different semioticians.

–   John Sturrock notes that some commentators, such as Mikhail Bakhtin – a literary theorist – have used semiotics for the “revelatory” political purpose of “demystifying” society, and that such approaches can lead to “loaded readings” of society simply as an ideological conspiracy by one social class against the rest

–   Cook adds that “a weakness of the semiotic approach is its exclusive devotion to similarities, and then an air of finality once these similarities are observed, which blinds it to what is unique”

–   Semiotics is not, never has been, and seems unlikely ever to be, an academic discipline in its own right. It is now widely regarded primarily as one mode of analysis amongst others rather than as a “science” of cultural forms


Strengths of Semiotic Analysis


– Semiotics provides us with a potentially unifying conceptual framework and a set of methods and terms for use across the full range of signifying practices, which include gesture, posture, dress, writing, speech, photography, film, television and radio. Semiotics may not itself be a discipline but it is at least a focus of enquiry, with a central concern for meaning-making practices which conventional academic disciplines treat as peripheral. As David Sless notes, “we consult linguists to find out about language, art historians or critics to find out about paintings, and anthropologists to find out how people in different societies signal to each other through gesture, dress or decoration. But if we want to know what all these different things have in common then we need to find someone with a semiotic point of view, a vantage point from which to survey our world”

– Semiotics is invaluable if we wish to look beyond the manifest content of texts. Structuralist semiotics seeks to look behind or beneath the surface of the observed in order to discover the underlying organization of phenomena. The more obvious the structural organization of a text or code may seem to be, the more difficult it may be to see beyond such surface features (Langholz Leymore 1975). Searching for what is “hidden” beneath the “obvious” can lead to fruitful insights. Semiotics is also well adapted to exploring connotative meanings. Social semiotics alerts us to how the same text may generate different meanings for different readers.

– Semiotics can also help us to realize that whatever assertions seem to us to be “obvious,” “natural,” universal, given, permanent and incontrovertible are generated by the ways in which sign systems operate in our discourse communities.

– Semiotics can help to make us aware of what we take for granted in representing the world, reminding us that we are always dealing with signs, not with an unmediated objective reality, and that sign systems are involved in the construction of meaning.

– In the study of the mass media, semiotic approaches can draw our attention to such taken-for-granted practices as the classic Hollywood convention of “invisible editing” which is still the dominant editing style in popular cinema and television. Semiotic treatments can make us aware that this is a manipulative convention which we have learned to accept as “natural” in film and television.

– As an approach to communication which focuses on meaning and interpretation, semiotics challenges the reductive transmission model which equates meaning with “message” (or content). Signs do not just “convey” meanings, but constitute a medium in which meanings are constructed. Semiotics helps us to realize that meaning is not passively absorbed but arises only in the active process of interpretation.

– Anthony Wilden has observed that “all language is communication but very little communication is language” (Wilden 1987). In an increasingly visual age, an important contribution of semiotics from Roland Barthes onwards has been a concern with imagistic as well as linguistic signs, particularly in the context of advertising, photography and audio-visual media. Semiotics may encourage us not to dismiss a particular medium as of less worth than another: literary and film critics often regard television as of less worth than prose fiction or “artistic” film. To élitist literary critics, of course, this would be a weakness of semiotics. Potentially, semiotics could help us to realize differences as well as similarities between various media. It could help us to avoid the routine privileging of one semiotic mode over another, such as the spoken over the written or the verbal over the non-verbal.

– Those who cannot understand such environments are in the greatest danger of being manipulated by those who can. For Peirce, “the universe… is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs” (Peirce 1931). There is no escape from signs. As Bill Nichols puts it, “As long as signs are produced, we will be obliged to understand them. This is a matter of nothing less than survival.”



–  Identifying the text

  • Wherever possible, include a copy of the text with your analysis of it, noting any significant shortcomings of the copy. Where including a copy is not practicable, offer a clear description which would allow someone to recognize the text easily if they encountered it themselves.
  • Briefly describe the medium used, the genre to which the text belongs and the context in which it was found.

–  Consider your purposes in analyzing the text. This will affect which questions seem important to you amongst those offered below.

  • Why did you choose this text?
  • Your purposes may reflect your values: how does the text relate to your own values?

–  How does the sign vehicle you are examining relate to the type-token distinction?

  • Is it one among many copies (e.g. a poster) or virtually unique (e.g. an actual painting)?
  • How does this influence your interpretation?

–  What are the important signifiers and what do they signify?

  • What is the system within which these signs make sense?

–  Modality

  • What reality claims are made by the text?
  • Does it allude to being fact or fiction?
  • What references are made to an everyday experiential world?
  • What modality markers are present?
  • How do you make use of such markers to make judgments about the relationship between the text and the world?
  • Does the text operate within a realist representational code?
  • To whom might it appear realistic?
  • “What does transparency keep obscure?” (Butler 1999)

–  Paradigmatic analysis

  • To which class of paradigms (medium; genre; theme) does the whole text belong?
  • How might a change of medium affect the meanings generated?
  • What might the text have been like if it had formed part of a different genre?
  • What paradigm sets do each of the signifiers used belong to? For example, in photographic, televisual and filmic media, one paradigm might be shot size.
  • Why do you think each signifier was chosen from the possible alternatives within the same paradigm set? What values does the choice of each particular signifier connote?
  • What signifiers from the same paradigm set are noticeably absent?
  • What contrasted pairs seem to be involved (e.g. nature/culture)?
  • Which of those in each pairing seems to be the “marked” category?
  • Is there a central opposition in the text?
  • Apply the commutation test in order to identify distinctive signifiers and to define their significance. This involves an imagined substitution of one signifier for another of your own, and assessing the effect.

–  What is the syntagmatic structure of the text?

  • Identify and describe syntagmatic structures in the text which take forms such as narrative, argument or montage.
  • How does one signifier relate to the others used (do some carry more weight than others)?
  • How does the sequential or spatial arrangement of the elements influence meaning?
  • Are there formulaic features that have shaped the text?
  • If you are comparing several texts within a genre look for a shared syntagm.
  • How far does identifying the paradigms and syntagms help you to understand the text?

–  Rhetorical tropes

  • What tropes (e.g. metaphors and metonyms) are involved?
  • How are they used to influence the preferred reading?

–  Intertextuality

  • Does it allude to other genres?
  • Does it allude to or compare with other texts within the genre?
  • How does it compare with treatments of similar themes within other genres?
  • Does one code within the text (such as a linguistic caption to an advertisement or news photograph) serve to “anchor” another (such as an image)? If so, how?

–  What semiotic codes are used?

  • Do the codes have double, single or no articulation?
  • Are the codes analogue or digital?
  • Which conventions of its genre are most obvious in the text?
  • Which codes are specific to the medium?
  • Which codes are shared with other media?
  • How do the codes involved relate to each other (e.g. words and images)?
  • Are the codes broadcast or narrowcast?
  • Which codes are notable by their absence?
  • What relationships does the text seek to establish with its readers?
  • How direct is the mode of address and what is the significance of this?
  • How else would you describe the mode of address?
  • What cultural assumptions are called upon?
  • To whom would these codes be most familiar?
  • What seems to be the preferred reading?
  • How far does this reflect or depart from dominant cultural values?
  • How “open” to interpretation does the sign seem to be?

–  Social semiotics

  • What does a purely structural analysis of the text downplay or ignore?
  • Who created the sign? Try to consider all of those involved in the process.
  • Whose realities does it represent and whose does it exclude?
  • For whom was it intended? Look carefully at the clues and try to be as detailed as you can.
  • How do people differ in their interpretation of the sign? Clearly this needs direct investigation.
  • On what do their interpretations seem to depend?
  • Illustrate, where possible, dominant, negotiated and oppositional readings.
  • How might a change of context influence interpretation?

–  Benefits of semiotic analysis

  • What other contributions have semioticians made that can be applied productively to the text?
  • What insights has a semiotic analysis of this text offered?
  • What other strategies might you need to employ to balance any shortcomings of your analysis?





Lots of words in here that are strictly applicable to semiotics, and many that you’ve undoubtedly heard before but never quite knew what they meant…..(e.g., poststructuralism anyone?)

Asynchronous communication: Asynchronous communication is communication other than in “real-time” – feedback is significantly delayed rather than potentially immediate. This feature ties together the presence or absence of the producer(s) of the text and the technical features of the medium. Asynchronous interpersonal communication is primarily through verbal text (e.g. letters, fax, e-mail). Asynchronous mass communication is primarily through verbal text, graphics and/or audio-visual media (e.g. film, television, radio, newspapers, magazines etc.).

Codes: One of the fundamental concepts in semiotics. Semiotic codes are procedural systems of related conventions for correlating signifiers and signifieds in certain domains. Codes provide a framework within which signs make sense: they are interpretative devices which are used by interpretative communities. They can be broadly divided into social codes, textual codes and interpretative codes. Some codes are fairly explicit; others (dubbed “hermeneutics” by Guiraud) are much looser. Within a code there may also be “subcodes” such as stylistic and personal subcodes (or idiolects).

Commonsense: “Commonsense” represents the most widespread cultural and historical values, attitudes and beliefs within a given culture. It is generated by ideological forces operating through codes and myths. Myths serve to ensure that certain familiar assumptions and values are taken-for-granted and unquestioned by most members of the culture, and seem entirely “natural,” “normal” and self-evident. For instance, in western cultures, a widespread assumption is that of naive realism, which regards reality as independent of the signs which refer to it. The transmission model of communication reflects commonsensical notions of what communication is. Individualism also presents itself as commonsense in insisting that “I” am a unique individual with a stable, unified identity and with original ideas and intentions of my own. Queer theorists argue that “heteronormativity” is the gender regime which maintains the fundamental assumption that heterosexuality is natural, universal and monolithic. Such myths are powerful since they seem to “go without saying” and appear not to need to be deciphered or demystified. Commonsense does involve incoherences, ambiguities, paradoxes, contradictions and omissions; the role of ideology is to suppress these in the interests of dominant groups. Semiotics seeks to demonstrate that commonsense meanings are not givens, but are shaped by ideological forces.

Communication: From a semiotic perspective, communication involves encoding and decoding texts according to the conventions of appropriate codes (Jakobson). The centrality of codes to communication is a distinctive semiotic contribution which emphasizes the social nature of communication and the importance of conventions. While most semioticians are concerned with communicative meaning-making, some semioticians also study the attribution of meaning even where no intent to communicate exists or where no human agency was involved in producing what is perceived as a sign.

Complex sign: Saussure’s term for a sign which contains other signs. A text is usually a complex sign.

Constructivism, (social) constructionism: A philosophical (specifically epistemological) stance (with diverse labels) on “what is real?” Constructivism can be seen as offering an alternative to the binarism involved in polarizing the issue into the objectivism of naive realists versus the radical subjectivism of the idealists. In contrast to realists, constructivists argue that “reality” is not wholly external to and independent of how we conceptualize the world: our sign systems (language and other media) play a major part in “the social construction of reality;” realities cannot be separated from the sign systems in which they are experienced. Most constructivists argue that even in relation to “physical reality,” realists underestimate the social processes of mediation involved: for instance, perception itself involves codes, and what count as objects, their properties and their relations vary from language to language. According to Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” in quantum mechanics, even physical objects can be affected by observational processes. Constructivists differ from extreme subjectivists in insisting that realities are not limitless and unique to (or definable by) the individual; rather, they are the product of social definitions and as such far from equal in status. Realities are contested, and textual representations are thus “sites of struggle”. Realists often criticize constructivism as extreme relativism – a position from which constructivists frequently distance themselves. Note that a constructivist stance does not necessarily entail a denial of the existence of physical reality.

Content analysis: A quantitative form of textual analysis involving the categorization and counting of recurrent elements in the form or content of texts. This method can be used in conjunction with semiotic analysis (semiotic textual analysis being a qualitative methodology).

Cultural relativism/relativity: Cultural relativism is the view that each culture has its own worldview and that none of these can be regarded as more or less privileged or “authentic” in its representation of “reality” than another. Cultural worldviews are historically-situated social constructions. Cultural relativists tend also to be linguistic relativists, arguing that dominant cultural worldviews are reflected in ontologies which are built into the language of that culture. Cultural relativism is a fundamental assumption involved in Whorfianism. Anthropologists and others who study signifying practices within a culture can be seen as cultural relativists insofar as they seek to understand each culture in its own terms. However, as with epistemological relativism (with which it is closely associated), the label is often used as a criticism, being equated with extreme idealism or nihilism.

Deconstruction: This is a poststructuralist strategy for textual analysis which was developed by Jacques Derrida. Practitioners seek to dismantle the rhetorical structures within a text to demonstrate how key concepts within it depend on their unstated oppositional relation to absent signifiers (this involved building on the structuralist method of paradigmatic analysis). Texts do not “mean what they say.” Contradictions can be identified within texts in such backgrounded features as footnotes, recurrent concepts or tropes, casual allusions, paradoxical phrases, discontinuities and omissions. Searching for inexplicit oppositions can reveal what is being excluded. That which has been repressed can be used as a key to an oppositional reading of the text. Poststructuralists insist that no hierarchy of meanings can ever be established and no solid underlying structural foundation can ever be located. Derrida aimed to undermine what he called the “metaphysics of presence” in Western culture – the bias towards what we fondly assume to be “unmediated” perception and interaction. This bias involves phonocentrism (including that of Saussure) and the myth of the “transcendent signified.” Other deconstructionists have also exposed culturally-embedded conceptual oppositions in which the initial term is privileged, leaving “term B” negatively “marked.” Radical deconstruction is not simply a reversal of the valorization in an opposition but a demonstration of the instability of the opposition (since challenging the valorization alone may be taken to imply that one nevertheless accepts an ontological division along the lines of the opposition in question). Indeed, the most radical deconstruction challenges both the framework of the relevant opposition and binary frameworks in general. Deconstructionists acknowledge that their own texts are open to further deconstruction: there is no definitive reading; all texts contain contradictions, gaps and disjunctions – they undermine themselves. More broadly, deconstructive cultural criticism involves demonstrating how signifying practices construct, rather than simply represent social reality, and how ideology works to make such practices seem transparent.

Discourse: The use of the term discourse by theorists generally reflects an emphasis on parole rather than langue. Many contemporary theorists influenced by Michel Foucault treat language not as a monolithic system but as structured into different discourses such as those of science, law, government, medicine, journalism and morality. A discourse is a system of representation consisting of a set of representational codes (including a distinctive interpretative repertoire of concepts, tropes and myths) for constructing and maintaining particular forms of reality within the ontological domain (or topic) defined as relevant to its concerns. Representational codes thus reflect relational principles underlying the symbolic order of the “discursive field.” According to Foucault, whose primary concern was the analysis of “discursive formations” in specific historical and socio-cultural contexts, a particular discursive formation maintains its own “regime of truth.” He adopted a stance of linguistic determinism, arguing that the dominant tropes within the discourse of a particular historical period determine what can be known – constituting the basic episteme of the age. A range of discursive positions is available at any given time, reflecting many determinants (economic, political, sexual etc.). Foucault focused on power relations, noting that within such contexts, the discourses and signifiers of some interpretative communities (e.g. “law,” “money,” “power”) are privileged and dominant While others are marginalized. Structuralists deterministically see the subject as the product of the available discourses While constructivists allow for the possibility of negotiation or resistance. Poststructuralists deny any meaning (or more provocatively any reality) outside of discourses.

Form and content: A distinction sometimes equated to Saussure’s distinction between the signifier (seen as form) and the signified (seen as content). However, the metaphor of form as a “container” is problematic, tending to support the equation of content with meaning, implying that meaning can be “extracted” without an active process of interpretation and that form is not in itself meaningful. In “realistic” codes, content is foregrounded while form retreats to transparency.

Functions of signs: In Jakobson’s model of linguistic communication the dominance of any one of six factors within an utterance reflects a different linguistic function. referential: oriented towards the context; expressive: oriented towards the addresser; conative: oriented towards the addressee; phatic: oriented towards the contact; metalingual: oriented towards the code; poetic: oriented towards the message. In any given situation one of these factors is “dominant,” and this dominant function influences the general character of the “message.”

Idiolect: A term from sociolinguistics referring to the distinctive ways in which language is used by individuals. In semiotic terms it can refer more broadly to the stylistic and personal subcodes of individuals.

Interpersonal communication: In contrast to mass communication (“one-to-many” communication), this term is typically used to refer to “one-to-one” communication, although this distinction tends to overlook the importance of communication in small groups (neither “one” nor “many”). It may be either synchronous or asynchronous. Synchronous interpersonal communication may involve: (a) both speech and non-verbal cues (e.g. direct face-to-face interaction, video links); (b) speech alone (e.g., telephone); or (c) mainly text (e.g. internet chat systems). Asynchronous interpersonal communication tends to be primarily through text (e.g. letters, fax, e-mail).

Interpretative community: Those who share the same codes are members of the same “interpretative community” – a term introduced by the literary theorist Stanley Fish to refer to both “writers” and “readers” of particular genres of texts (but which can be used more widely to refer to those who share any code). Linguists tend to use the logocentric term, “discourse community”. Thomas Kuhn used the term “textual community” to refer to epistemic (or epistemological) communities with shared texts, interpretations and beliefs. Constructivists argue that interpretative communities are involved in the construction and maintenance of reality within the ontological domain which defines their concerns. The conventions within the codes employed by such communities become naturalized amongst its members. Individuals belong simultaneously to several interpretative communities.

Langue and parole: These are Saussure’s terms. Langue refers to the abstract system of rules and conventions of a signifying system – it is independent of, and pre-exists, individual users. Parole refers to concrete instances of its use. To the Saussurean semiotician, what matters most are the underlying structures and rules of a semiotic system as a whole rather than specific performances or practices which are merely instances of its use. While Saussure did not concern himself with parole, the structure of langue is of course revealed by the study of parole. Applying the notion to semiotic systems in general rather than simply to language, the distinction is one between the semiotic system and its usage in specific texts and practices. For instance, in a semiotic system such as cinema, any specific film can be seen as the parole of the underlying system of cinema “language” (although note that the eminent film theorist Christian Metz rejected the idea of a cinematic langue). Saussure emphasized the importance of studying the “language-state” synchronically – as it exists as a relatively stable system during a certain period – rather than diachronically (studying its evolution).

Linguistic determinism: According to linguistic determinists our thinking (or “worldview”) is determined by language – by the very use of verbal language and/or by the grammatical structures, semantic distinctions and inbuilt ontologies within a language. A more moderate stance is that thinking may be “influenced” rather than unavoidably “determined” by language: it is a two-way process, so that the kind of language we use is also influenced by the way we see the world. Critics who are socially-oriented emphasize the social context of language use rather than purely linguistic considerations; any influence is ascribed not to “Language” as such (which would be to reify language) but to usage in particular contexts and to particular kinds of discourse (e.g. a sociolect). Both structuralists and poststructuralists give priority to the determining power of the language system: language patterns our experience and the subject is constructed through discourse.

Medium: The term “medium” is used in a variety of ways by different theorists, and may include such broad categories as speech and writing or print and broadcasting or relate to specific technical forms within the media of mass communication (radio, television, newspapers, magazines, books, photographs, films and records) or the media of interpersonal communication (telephone, letter, fax, e-mail, video-conferencing, computer-based chat systems). A medium is typically treated instrumentally as a transparent vehicle of representation by readers of texts composed within it, but the medium used may itself contribute to meaning: a hand-written letter and a word-processed circular could carry the same verbal text but generate different connotations. Signs and codes are always anchored in the material form of a medium – each of which has its own constraints and affordances. A medium may be digital or analogical. Postmodernist theorists tend to blur distinctions between one medium and another. Marshall McLuhan famously declared that “the medium is the message“.

Postmodernism: This slippery term, which ostensibly refers to an era succeeding modernism, is philosophically allied with poststructuralism, deconstruction, radical skepticism and relativism – with which it shares an anti-foundationalist stance. Ironically postmodernism could almost be defined in terms of resisting definition. Postmodernism does not constitute a unified “theory” (though many postmodernist theorists grant no access to any reality outside signification). Nor is there a “postmodernist” aesthetic “movement;” postmodernism is highly fragmented and eclectic. However, characteristic features of postmodern texts and practices are the use of irony and a highly reflexive intertextuality – blurring the boundaries of texts, genres and media and drawing attention to the text’s constructedness and processes of construction. Postmodernism differs from modernism in embracing popular culture and “bad taste”. The postmodernist trend is sometimes dated from Jean-François Lyotard’s book, The Postmodern Condition, first published in 1979, which characterized postmodernist theory in terms of “incredulity towards meta narratives”. See also: Deconstruction, Intertextuality, Modernism, Poststructuralism, Reflexivity,

Poststructuralism: While poststructuralism is often interpreted simply as “anti-structuralism”, it is worth noting that the label refers to a school of thought which developed after, out of, and in relation to structuralism. Poststructuralism built on and adapted structuralist notions in addition to problematizing many of them. For instance, while Saussure argued for the arbitrariness of the relationship between the signifier and the signified and the primacy of the signifier, many poststructuralists have taken this notion further, asserting the total disconnection of the signifier and the signified. (they tend to be idealists, granting no access to any reality outside signification). Both schools of thought are built on the assumption that we are the subjects of language rather than being simply instrumental “users” of it, and poststructuralist thinkers have developed further the notion of “the constitution of the subject,” challenging essentialist romantic individualism (the notion that we are autonomous and creative agents with stable, unified “personalities” and “original” ideas). Poststructuralist semiotics is post-Saussurean semiotics; it involves a rejection of Saussure’s hopes for semiotics as a systematic “science” which could reveal some stable, underlying master-system – any such system would always involve exclusions and contradictions. For poststructuralists there are no fundamental “deep structures” underlying forms in an external world. While some semioticians have retained a structuralist concern with the analysis of formal systems, poststructuralist semioticians insist that no such analysis can ever be exhaustive or final. Many poststructuralist semioticians are involved in deconstruction, emphasizing the instability of the relationship between the signifier and the signified and the way in which the dominant ideology seeks to promote the illusion of a transcendental signified. Some poststructuralist semioticians are social semioticians who are concerned with “signifying practices” in specific social contexts. Such semioticians have extended Saussure’s emphasis on meaning as relational to include not only relationships within a self-contained linguistic system, but also the interpretative importance of such broader contexts of language use. Poststructuralist theorists include Derrida, Foucault, Lacan, Kristeva and the later Barthes. Poststructuralism is closely allied with postmodernism and the terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

Primacy of the signifier: The argument that “reality” or “the world” is at least partly created by the language (and other media) we use insists on the primacy of the signifier – suggesting that the signified is shaped by the signifier rather than vice versa. Some theorists stress the materiality of the signifier. Others note that the same signifier can have different signifieds for different people or for the same person at different times. Lévi-Strauss emphasized the primacy of the signifier, initially as a strategy for structural analysis. Poststructuralist theorists such as Lacan, Barthes, Derrida, Foucault have developed this notion into a metaphysical presupposition of the priority of the signifier, but its roots can be found in Saussure and structuralism.

Saussurean model of the sign: In Saussure’s model, the sign consisted of two elements: a signifier and a signified (though he insisted that these were inseparable other than for analytical purposes). This dyadic model makes no direct reference to a referent in the world, and can be seen as supporting the notion that language does not “reflect” reality but rather constructs it. It has been criticized as an idealist model. Saussure stressed that signs only made sense in terms of their relationships to other signs within the same signifying system

Semantics: Morris divided semiotics into three branches: syntactics, semantics and pragmatics. Semantics refers to the study of the meaning of signs (the relationship of signs to what they stand for). The interpretation of signs by their users can also be seen as levels corresponding to these three branches – the semantic level being the comprehension of the preferred reading of the sign.

Semiology: Saussure’s term sémiologie dates from a manuscript of 1894. “Semiology” is sometimes used to refer to the study of signs by those within the Saussurean tradition (e.g. Barthes, Lévi-Strauss, Kristeva and Baudrillard), While “semiotics” sometimes refers to those working within the Peircean tradition (e.g. Morris, Richards, Ogden and Sebeok). Sometimes “semiology” refers to work concerned primarily with textual analysis While “semiotics” refers to more philosophically-oriented work. Saussure’s semiotics embraced only intentional communication – specifically human communication using conventionalized, artificial sign systems. Nowadays the term “semiotics” is widely used as an umbrella term to include “semiology” and (to use Peirce’s term) “semiotic.”

Sign: A sign is a meaningful unit which is interpreted as “standing for” something other than itself. Signs are found in the physical form of words, images, sounds, acts or objects (this physical form is sometimes known as the sign vehicle). Signs have no intrinsic meaning and become signs only when sign-users invest them with meaning with reference to a recognized code. Semiotics is the study of signs.

Structuralism: Ferdinand de Saussure, the founder of modern linguistics, was a pioneer of structuralist thinking – his was the linguistic model which inspired the European structuralists. Other key structuralists include Nikolai Trubetzkoy, Roman Jakobson, Louis Hjelmslev and Algirdas Greimas in linguistics, Claude Lévi-Strauss in anthropology, Louis Althusser in political science, Roland Barthes in literary criticism and Jacques Lacan in psychoanalysis (although the theories of Barthes and Lacan evolved into poststructuralist ones). Michel Foucault, a historian of ideas, is often seen as a structuralist, although he rejected this label; his ideas are also closely allied with poststructuralism. Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale was published in 1916; although the words “structure” and “structuralism” are not mentioned, it is the source of much of the terminology of structuralism. Formalism was a key tributary leading to structuralism in the late 1920s and 1930s. The birth of European structuralism is usually associated with a conference of the Prague school linguists in The Hague in 1928. The first English translation of Saussure’s Course was published in 1959, and structuralism flourished in academic circles in the 1960s and 1970s (though it continued to be influential in the 1980s). The primary concern of the Structuralists is with systems or structures rather than with referential meaning or the specificities of usage. Structuralists regard each language as a relational system or structure and give priority to the determining power of the language system (a principle shared by poststructuralists). They seek to describe the overall organization of sign systems as “languages” – as with Lévi-Strauss and myth, kinship rules and totemism, Lacan and the unconscious and Barthes and Greimas and the “grammar” of narrative. The primary emphasis is on the whole system – which is seen as “more than the sum of its parts”. Structuralists engage in a systematic search for “deep structures” underlying the surface features of phenomena (such as language, society, thought and behavior). Their textual analysis is synchronic, seeking to delineate the codes and rules which underlie the production of texts by comparing those perceived as belonging to the same system (e.g. a genre) and identifying invariant constituent units. The analysis of specific texts seeks to break down larger, more abstract units into “minimal significant units” by means of the commutation test, then groups these units by membership of paradigms and identifies the syntagmatic relations which link the units. The search for underlying semantic oppositions is characteristic of structuralist textual analysis. Contemporary social semiotics has moved beyond structuralist analysis of the internal relations of parts within a self-contained system.

Text: Most broadly, this term is used to refer to anything which can be “read” for meaning; to some theorists, “the world” is “social text.” Although the term appears to privilege written texts (it seems graphocentric and logocentric), to most semioticians a “text” is an system of signs (in the form of words, images, sounds and/or gestures). It is constructed and interpreted with reference to the conventions associated with a genre and in a particular medium of communication. The term is often used to refer to recorded (e.g. written) texts which are independent of their users (used in this sense the term excludes unrecorded speech). A text is the product of a process of representation and “positions” both its makers and its readers. Typically, readers tend to focus mainly on what is represented in a text rather than on the processes of representation involved (which usually seem to be transparent).

Whorfianism: In its most extreme version “the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis” can be described as relating two associated principles: linguistic determinism and linguistic relativism. Applying these two principles, the Whorfian thesis is that people who speak different languages perceive and think about the world quite differently, their worldviews being shaped or determined by the language of the culture (a notion rejected by social determinists). Critics note that we cannot make inferences about differences in worldview solely on the basis of differences in linguistic structure. While few linguists would accept the Whorfian hypothesis in its “strong,” extreme or deterministic form, many now accept a “weak,” more moderate, or limited Whorfianism, namely that the ways in which we see the world may be influenced by the kind of language we use.



About Falah

Keepsmile and .... and... and....
This entry was posted in Filsafat. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s