Semiotics+and+Structuralism

media type="youtube" key="8IzIw-TPDSQ?fs=1" height="385" width="480" [|Semiotics, definition of]: Loosely defined as 'the study of signs' or 'the theory of signs', what Saussure called [|'semiology'] was: 'a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life'. Saussure's use of the term //sémiologie// dates from 1894 and Peirce's first use of the term //semiotic// was in 1897. Semiotics has not become widely institutionalized as a formal academic discipline and it is not really a science. It is not purely a method of textual analysis, but involves both the theory and analysis of [|signs] and [|signifying practices]. Beyond the most basic definition, there is considerable variation amongst leading semioticians as to what semiotics involves, although a distinctive concern is with //how// things signify, and with [|representational] practices and systems (in the form of [|codes]). In the 1970s, semioticians began to shift away from purely [|structuralist] (Saussurean) semiotics concerned with the structural analysis of formal semiotic systems towards a [|'poststructuralist'] [|'social semiotics'] - focusing on 'signifying practices' in specific social contexts.

[|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.

[|Signifier (//signifiant//)]: For Saussure, this was one of the two parts of the [|sign] (which was indivisible except for analytical purposes). In the Saussurean tradition, the signifier is the //form// which a sign takes. For Saussure himself, in relation to linguistic signs, this meant a non-material form of the spoken word - 'a sound-image' ('the psychological imprint of the sound, the impression it makes on our senses'). Subsequent semioticians have treated it as the [|material (or physical) form of the sign] - something which can be seen, heard, felt, smelt or tasted (also called the [|sign vehicle]).

[|Signified (//signifié//)]: For Saussure, the signified was one of the two parts of the [|sign] (which was indivisible except for analytical purposes). Saussure's //signified// is the mental //concept// represented by the [|signifier] (and is //not// a [|material] thing). This does not exclude the reference of signs to physical objects in the world as well as to abstract concepts and fictional entities, but the signified is not itself a [|referent] in the world (in contrast to Peirce's [|//object//]). It is common for subsequent interpreters to equate the //signified// with 'content' (matching the //form// of the signifier in the familiar dualism of [|'form and content']).

[|Iconic]: A mode in which the [|signifier] is perceived as resembling or imitating the [|signified] (recognizably looking, sounding, feeling, tasting or smelling like it) - being similar in possessing some of its qualities (e.g. a portrait, a diagram, a scale-model, onomatopoeia, metaphors, 'realistic' sounds in music, sound effects in radio drama, a dubbed film soundtrack, imitative gestures) (Peirce).

[|Indexical]: A mode in which the [|signifier] is //not// purely [| arbitrary] but is directly connected in some way (physically or causally) to the [|signified] - this link can be observed or inferred (e.g. smoke, weathercock, thermometer, clock, spirit-level, footprint, fingerprint, knock on door, pulse rate, rashes, pain) (Peirce).

[|Symbolic]: A mode in which the [|signifier] does //not// resemble the [|signified] but which is [|arbitrary] or purely [|conventional] - so that the relationship must be learnt (e.g. the word 'stop', a red traffic light, a national flag, a number) (Peirce).

[|Denotation]: The term refers to the relationship between the [| signifier] and its [|signified]. //Denotation// is routinely treated as the definitional, 'literal', 'obvious' or [|'commonsense'] meaning of a [|sign], but semioticians tend to treat it as a signified about which there is a relatively broad //consensus//. For Barthes, a denotative sign existed within what he called the //first// [|order of signification]. In this framework [|connotation] is a further sign (or signs) deriving from the signifier of a denotative sign. However, no clear distinction can be made between denotation and [| //connotation//].

[|Connotation]: The socio-cultural and personal associations produced as a [|reader] [|decodes] a [| text]. The term also refers to the relationship between the [| signifier] and its [|signified]. For Barthes, connotation was a second [|order of signification] which uses the [|denotative sign] ([|signifier] and [|signified]) as its signifier and attaches to it an additional signified. In this framework connotation is a [|sign] which derives from the signifier of a denotative sign (so denotation leads to a chain of connotations).

[|Paradigm]: A paradigm is a set of associated [|signifiers] which are all members of some defining category, but in which each signifier is significantly different. In natural language there are grammatical paradigms such as verbs or nouns. In a given context, one member of the paradigm set is structurally replaceable with another. The use of one signifier (e.g. a particular word or a garment) rather than another from the same paradigm set (e.g. adjectives or hats) shapes the [|preferred meaning] of a [|text]. //Paradigmatic relations// are the [|oppositions] and contrasts between the signifiers that belong to the same paradigm set from which those used in the text were drawn.

[|Structuralism]: The primary concern of the Structuralists is with systems or structures rather than with referential [|meaning] or the specificities of usage (see [|//Langue// and //parole//]). 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 behaviour). 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.

[|Poststructuralism]: Whilst 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 problematising many of them. For instance, whilst 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 (see [|Empty signifier]). (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. Whilst 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.

From [|Semiotics for Beginners]