The World of SPLectrum
Home > Positioning > Subjects > Semiotics
Semiotics
Semiotics is the theory of signs — of how anything comes to stand for something else, and of the structures and processes by which meaning is made. It is a peer of the other great accounts of meaning the twentieth century produced, neither a branch of linguistics nor of philosophy alone but a discipline that claims as its object signification wherever it occurs: in language, but also in images, gestures, garments, rituals, music, traffic lights, the markings of animals, the signalling of cells. Its widest ambition was stated by Umberto Eco: semiotics studies “everything which can be used in order to lie” — for whatever can stand for something can also stand for what is not the case.
The tradition has two sources, which arose independently and have never quite merged. Charles Sanders Peirce, working in the United States within logic and the theory of inquiry, built a triadic account of the sign and called the field “semiotic.” Ferdinand de Saussure, working in Geneva within linguistics, built a dyadic account and projected a future science he called “semiology.” Their two models of what a sign is — and the different worlds they opened, one reaching down into biology, the other across into culture — set the lines along which the whole subject has developed, and the division between them is the tradition’s standing question.
The two foundations
Peirce’s sign is a relation of three terms, not two. A sign (or representamen) stands for an object, but only by giving rise to a third thing — an interpretant, the further sign or understanding it produces in a mind or a subsequent process. Meaning is never a closed pairing of word and thing; it is this triadic relation, and because every interpretant is itself a sign that calls for a further interpretant, signification opens an endless process Peirce called semiosis (and which Eco later named “unlimited semiosis”). Peirce also classified signs by how they relate to their objects: the icon by resemblance (a portrait, a diagram), the index by real connection (smoke for fire, a weathervane for the wind), the symbol by convention (a word, a flag). This typology — and the idea that signs work even where no language and no human is present — is what made the Peircean line extensible to the whole of nature.
Saussure’s sign is a relation of two terms, both mental: a signifier (a sound-image) and a signified (a concept), bound by a tie that is arbitrary, fixed by convention rather than nature. Crucially, a sign has no positive content of its own; it has value only through its differences from the other signs in the system — “in language there are only differences without positive terms.” Meaning is the product of a system (langue) studied as it stands at a moment (synchronically), not of the individual act of speech (parole) or the system’s history. Where Peirce’s sign points outward to an object and onward to an interpretant, Saussure’s turns inward to the system of differences; where Peirce reaches toward logic and the natural world, Saussure reaches toward society and culture. The two paradigms share the founding insight that meaning is relational, and divide on almost everything else.
The structural line: language and beyond
Saussure’s semiology was carried forward first as a rigorous structural linguistics and then outward to other systems. The Danish linguist Louis Hjelmslev, with Hans Jørgen Uldall, built the formal theory he called glossematics (Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, 1943), reworking Saussure’s two-sided sign into two planes — expression and content — each analysable into form and substance. The refinement mattered downstream: it gave later semioticians a way to describe how one sign system can be built on top of another, a sign’s whole expression-and-content becoming the mere expression of a further content.
Roman Jakobson, who carried the Prague School’s structural phonology to America, drew the map of communication itself. In his account (“Linguistics and Poetics,” 1960) every act of communication involves six factors — addresser, addressee, context, message, contact, code — and each throws weight on a corresponding function of language: the emotive, conative, referential, poetic, phatic, and metalingual. The poetic function, where the message draws attention to its own form, is “the projection of the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination.” Jakobson also distinguished metaphor (the axis of similarity and selection) from metonymy (the axis of contiguity and combination), tying the pair to two types of aphasia. Almost alone among the structuralists he read Peirce seriously, taking up icon, index, and symbol — the first significant bridge between the two founding lineages.
The semiotics of culture
From the 1950s the dyadic tradition expanded from language to the sign-life of whole societies. Roland Barthes turned semiology on the everyday — wrestling, advertising, food, fashion, photographs. In Mythologies (1957) he analysed myth as a “second-order semiological system”: an ordinary sign (a photograph of a saluting soldier) becomes in turn the signifier of a further, ideological meaning (the grandeur of empire), so that culture’s contingent messages present themselves as natural. The mechanism is connotation — a second layer of signification riding on the first — which Barthes drew from Hjelmslev’s planes and elaborated in Elements of Semiology (1964) and The Fashion System (1967).
Algirdas Julien Greimas and the Paris School pursued the structural analysis of meaning to its most formal. His Structural Semantics (1966) proposed the semiotic square — later formalised with François Rastier — a diagram of the logical relations (contrariety, contradiction, implication) that articulate any semantic field, and an actantial model that reduced the agents of any narrative to a small set of structural roles (subject and object, sender and receiver, helper and opponent), generalising Vladimir Propp’s morphology of the folktale.
Umberto Eco gave the field one of its most complete systematisations and then its most influential brake. A Theory of Semiotics (1975) set out a theory of codes (how signification is organised) alongside a theory of sign production. But against the reading of his own early Open Work (1962) as a licence for endless interpretation, Eco’s later The Limits of Interpretation (1990) insisted that a text constrains its readings: the openness of the work is not unlimited, and “overinterpretation” can be wrong. His model reader — the reader a text constructs and requires — names the standard against which an interpretation answers.
Juri Lotman and the Tartu–Moscow school treated culture itself as a hierarchy of sign systems — natural language as the primary modelling system, art, myth, and literature as “secondary modelling systems” built upon it. Lotman’s semiosphere (1984), named by analogy with Vernadsky’s biosphere, is “that semiotic space outside of which semiosis itself cannot exist” — the whole continuum of signs within which any individual language becomes possible, no more reducible to a sum of separate codes than a living organism is to its cells.
The biosemiotic extension
The Peircean line opened a different frontier: signs in the living world. Its organiser was Thomas Sebeok, who argued that signification is not a human monopoly but a property of life as such. He coined zoosemiotics for the sign-behaviour of animals and became the chief architect of biosemiotics, the study of sign processes throughout the living world, championing both Peirce and a half-forgotten predecessor, the biologist Jakob von Uexküll.
Uexküll’s concept of the Umwelt (1934) is the seed of the field: every organism inhabits not the objective environment but its own Umwelt, the world as disclosed through its particular senses and needs — the tick’s world of butyric acid, warmth, and hair; the sea-urchin’s world of shadow. Perception and action form a closed functional circle, and meaning is what an object has for the organism within its Umwelt. On this basis Jesper Hoffmeyer and others have developed a thoroughgoing biosemiotics (Signs of Meaning in the Universe, 1996) in which sign-relations run from the cell upward, and life and semiosis are held to be coextensive — the most expansive claim the tradition has made, and its most contested.
Where semiotics stops
The tradition has never unified its two foundations. Peirce’s triadic, logical, world-spanning sign and Saussure’s dyadic, differential, system-bound sign rest on different metaphysics and answer to different questions, and a century of work has produced no single theory of the sign that both lineages accept — only a field with two centres of gravity, between which figures like Jakobson and Sebeok have built bridges without merging the banks. What semiotics is — one science, or two traditions sharing a name — is its own open question, in the way the division between method and ontology is hermeneutics’.
Its reach is also its difficulty. By taking signification itself as its object, semiotics can describe almost anything — a poem, a meal, a courtship display, a genome — and the breadth that is its ambition is also the standing charge against it: that a discipline of everything that can mean risks explaining the specificity of nothing, and that extending the sign downward into cells and upward into whole cultures stretches the concept until it is unclear what would not count as a sign. The dyadic line, bracketing the referent and the speaking subject to study the system, was pushed by its own logic toward the instability that deconstruction and post-structuralism exposed; the biosemiotic line, extending signhood across all of life, must answer the charge that it reads intention and interpretation into processes that have neither. The tradition’s power and its perennial vulnerability are the same fact: it has made meaning a universal medium, and a universal medium is hard to hold at arm’s length and examine.
Persons
See also: Structuralism · Pragmatism · Deconstruction