1.  Introduction  Introduction

  p a g e  2

2.  Main part  

2.1  Ferdinand de Saussure s model  

2.1.1  signifiant and signifié p a g e  2

2.1.2  concept and sound pattern p a g e  3

2.1.3  relation value p a g e  4

2.1.4  arbitrariness convention page  6

2.2  Charles Sanders Peirce s model  

2.2.1  triadic model I: Representamen Interpretant Object page  8

2.2.2  triadic model II: sign vehicle sense referent page  9

2.2.3  index icon and symbol page  10

2.3  Karl Bühler s model  

2.3.1  Bühler s first model page  12

2.3.2  Bühler s second model page  14

3.  Conclusion  

  p a g e 1  6

4.  Bibliography  

  p a g e 2  0

  - 2 -  

1. Introduction We seem to be a species that is driven by “a desire to make meanings” (Chandler: 1995) by creating and interpreting signs. Indeed, it is a fact that “we think only in signs” (Peirce: 1931- 58, II.302). These signs can have the shape of sounds, images, objects, acts or flavours. Since these things do not have an intrinsic meaning, we have to give them a meaning so that they can become signs. Peirce states that “Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign” (Peirce: 1931-58, II.172). This means that everything can become a sign as long as it ‘signifies’ something – refers to or stands for “something other than itself” (Chandler: 1995). Our interpretation of signs is an unconscious process in our minds as we constantly relate the signs we experience to a system of conventions that is familiar to us. This system of conventions and the use of signs in general is what semiotics is about. There are three major models that give a detailed explanation of the constitution of a sign; these are the models of Ferdinand de Saussure’s, Charles Sanders Peirce’s and Karl Bühler’s model. At first, they will be presented in detail and secondly, there will be a brief discussion about them.

2. Main Part

2.1 Ferdinand de Saussure’s model

2.1.1 signifiant and signifié

Saussure offered a “two-sided” (Saussure: 1983, 66) model of the linguistic sign, which may be represented by the following diagram (Fig. 1):

According to this diagram, the linguistic sign consists of a signifier, which can also be called a signifiant and a signified or signifié. Whereas the signifiant represents the form which the sign takes, the signifié represents the sign’s concept. The relationship between these two (– the signifiant and the signifié –) is called the signification and is shown by the two arrows that are on the diagram’s right and left side. As these arrows point in both directions, it is indicated that the elements of the sign are “intimately linked” (ibid) and “each triggers the other” (ibid). At last, there is a horizontal line between the signifiant and the signifié which is called the bar.

- 3 -

A linguistic example may be the word ‘book’: It is a sign that consists of, firstly, the signifiant

- the word ‘book’ - and, secondly, the signifié - the concept we have in mind when we hear or read the word ‘book’. This example shows that it is not sufficient to have only a signifiant or only a signifié; a sign must consist of both, a signifiant AND a signifié. Moreover, a linguistic sign can only be a sign if there is a combination of these two elements. Another example is Fig. 2: the ‘tree’ is the signifiant and what we have in mind when we hear or read the word ‘tree’ is the signifié.

In addition, it is also important to mention that one signifiant can have different signifiés, such as the German word ‘Pferd’. In different contexts, this word can have three different meanings: it can be an animal, a figure in chess and an apparatus in sports (Fig. 3) 1 .

2.1.2 concept and sound pattern

For Saussure, the sign with its two components – signifiant and signifié – is something “psychological [...,...] rather form than substance” (ibid). He states that a “linguistic sign is not a link between a thing and a name, but between a concept and a sound pattern. The sound pattern is not actually a sound, for a sound is something physical. A sound pattern is the hearer’s psychological impression of a sound, as given to him by the evidence of his senses. This sound pattern may be called a `material´ element only in that it is the representation of our sensory impressions. The sound pattern may thus be distinguished from the other element associated with it in a linguistic sign. This other element is generally a more abstract kind: the concept” (ibid). This explanation brings us to another diagram, which is comparable to Fig. 1 (Fig. 4).

This diagram shows that Saussure preferred the spoken to (???)the written word; he uses the term image acoustique or sound pattern for it. According to his theory, writing is a 1 All exa mples that do not have a source afterwards are done by myse lf or were stated in the course.

- 4 -

‘separate’ linguistic sign system, because it “is in itself not part of the internal system of the language” (Saussure: 1983, 24). Nevertheless, it is “impossible to ignore this way in which the language is constantly represented” (ibid.). To Saussure, writing really is important for Saussure; due to the fact that some languages are now dead, he is aware that they are only known because they were written down. However, it is the spoken word that is important for semiotics - not the written one. Although it is a fact that there is an important connection between the written and the spoken word, one has to concentrate on the last one in order to study the linguistic sign. Saussure compares this fact to a person and its photograph and declares: “It is rather as if people believed that in order to find out what a person looks like it is better to study his photograph than his face” (Saussure: 1983, 25).

Concerning the signifié in Saussure’s model (Fig. 3) it becomes obvious that it is a concept in the speaker’s mind; “it is not a thing, but the notion of a thing” (Chandler: 1995). To make clear what is meant by that, there will be an example from Susanne Langer in turn. She states that symbols – which is ‘her’ word for Saussure’s linguistic sign – “are not proxy for their objects but are vehicles for the conception of objects [...] In talking about things we have conceptions of them, not the things themselves; and it is the conceptions, not the things, that symbols directly mean” (Langer: 1951, 61). She even gives an example and declares “If I say ‘Napoleon’, you do not bow to the conqueror of Europe as though I had introduced him, but merely think of him” (ibid.).

Nevertheless, Saussure decided to use the terms signifiant and signifié to indicate a “distinction which separates each from the other” (Saussure: 1983, 67). He compares this with a sheet of paper: the signifiant (sound) is on one side and the signifié (thought) is on the other. It is impossible to cut only one side of the sheet without cutting the other. Therefore, it is impossible to separate thought from sound.

2.1.3 relation and value

However, in a linguistic system, “everything depends on relations” (Saussure: 1983, 121). This means that no sign can make sense if there is no relation to other signs. If we take the word ‘tree’ as a linguistic example: the word ‘tree’ makes sense for us, but only in a certain context and in relation to other words which are used. Another example may be the infinitive ‘to bark’. If we now take two sentences 1. ‘the dog barks’ and 2. *‘the cat barks’, the first one obviously makes more sense than the second one, as the infinitive itself reminds us of a dog that barks and certainly not a cat, because cats – as we all know - do not bark. That is why the word ‘bark’ only makes sense if it is used in context with the word ‘dog’.

- 5 -

Saussure uses the term ‘value’ for signs that are in relation to other signs. He declares that signs do not have the same value in different contexts (see Fig. 5). He compares this thought with a game of chess, as “a state of the board in chess corresponds exactly to a state of the language” (Saussure: 1983, 88): first of all, each chess piece has a certain position on the chess board on which their value depends. Secondly, the value is not fixed, as it changes from one position to the next. Thirdly, there are rules for a game of chess that are fixed and cannot be changed; everybody has to obey them. At last, only one piece is needed to change the state of the chess game. Saussure sums this comparison up in a few words and states that in a chess game “any given state of the board is totally independent of any previous state of the board. It does not matter at all whether the state in question has been reached by one sequence of moves or another sequence. Anyone who has followed the whole game has not the least advantage over a passer-by who happens to look at the game [...]. All this applies equally to a language [...] Speech operates only upon a given linguistic state, and the changes which supervene between one state and another have no place in either” (ibid.). (There is only one point in which the comparison lacks Although, there is, in fact, one weak point of the comparison left: in the chess game, the player has an intention – he wants to make moves and change something on the board – whereas in the language system, “there is no premeditation” (ibid.)

There are many more examples that prove the existence of value in language. Another one are the coins of each country, such as a two-Euro coin:

first of all, it is clear that the coin can be exchanged for other things, e.g. a coffee-to-go. Secondly, it can also be compared with other coins and therefore, other values, of a.) the same country, which then is the same system, such as a one-Euro coin or fifty-cent coin and b.) another country, which then is another system, such as a dollar.

Another example that even proves that the meaning of a sign is different from the value of a sign is the French word mouton. Although it has the same meaning as the English word sheep, it does not necessarily have the same value, because the English word for “the meat of this animal, as prepared and served for a meal, is not sheep but mutton.” (Saussure: 1983, 114). Due to the fact that the English has the word mutton for the meat, there is a difference between mouton and sheep because mouton covers both – the animal itself AND the meat.

- 6 -