Beyond Terminology: Exploring Sign Typology in Peirce and Saussure

Introduction:

Most objects and human activities could be considered signs, yet they don't seem to belong to the same class. Hence, semioticians have categorized them into different types for study. Despite these various typologies, three fundamental classes of signs seem to emerge, aligning with Peirce's theory: the icon, the index, and the sign proper (or 'symbol'). Each consists of two elements, that can be loosely called form and content, signal and concept, signifier and signified, etc. However, the relationship between these two elements varies in each case. (Culler, 1976)

An icon involves direct resemblance between its elements. A classic example is a picture representing a person through resemblance rather than convention. In an index, the relationship is causal; for instance, smoke signifies fire because fire typically causes smoke. In the sign proper (or 'symbol'), such as language, the relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary; for example, "t-r-e-e" signifies "tree" by convention.

Do we encounter a similar sign typology in Ferdinand de Saussure's semiology as we do in Peircean semiotics? Let's delve into this question by examining a passage that Derrida critically reads in “Glas.” (Derrida, 1986)

Collage in Language: Saussurean Semiology from a Derridean Perspective

In "Glas," a text that mimics a Rauschenberg, Derrida engages critically with the following excerpt of "Course in General Linguistics:"

"So signs, it can be said, that are wholly arbitrary realize better than the others the ideal of the semiological process [procede]; that is why language [langue], the most complex and universal of all systems of expression, is also the most characteristic; in this sense linguistics can become the general patron for all branches of semiology, although language is only one particular semiological system." [CGL] [101]

Derrida underlines the word although because it seemingly privileges language as the general patron for all branches of semiology, despite acknowledging that language is merely one particular semiological system among many, but we are going to focus now in the opening words in order to find some common ground between Peirce and Saussure and return to Derrida later.

The extract begins by asserting that signs which are entirely arbitrary, such as linguistic signs, more effectively embody the ideal of the semiotic process than others. As mentioned in the introduction, a parallel appears to emerge between Saussure's conception of the linguistic sign and the Peircean sign proper (or symbol). In both theories, the relationship between the involved elements is arbitrary and conventional.

However, more interesting is to find out what exactly these "others" mentioned in the quote are. Clues can be found within the Cours itself. Let's examine the following two snippets:

1. "It may be noted in passing that when semiology is established one of the questions that must be asked is whether modes of expression which rely upon signs that are entirely natural (mime, for example) fall within the province of semiology". [CGL] [100]

2. "For it is characteristic of symbols that they are never entirely arbitrary. They are not empty configurations. They show at least a vestige of natural connexion between the signal and its signification. For instance, our symbol of justice, the scales, could hardly be replaced by a chariot". [CGL] [101]

Mime, in the first snippet, involves the imitation of human actions or emotions such as crying, laughing, or running. It's deemed "natural" by Saussure because it replicates everyday human experiences. For example, when a mime artist mimics crying, they use facial expressions, body language, and gestures to convey sadness or distress, making it relatable to the audience.

In semiotics, an icon is a sign resembling its referent. The actions and gestures performed by the mime artist resemble real-life actions or emotions. For instance, mimicking climbing a ladder involves movements akin to actual ladder-climbing.

Both mime and icons rely on similarity to convey meaning. Mime uses bodily movements, while icons use visual representations. In both, the aim is to prompt recognition and understanding by evoking familiarity with the real world.

We can conclude from the above that there is a basis to classify mime as an icon, despite not being identical to a picture, for example.

Let's now analyse the second snippet from the Course, where it states, "our symbol of justice, the scales, could hardly be replaced by a chariot."

In Peircean semiotics, an index is a sign that denotes its object through a factual or causal connection. For instance, smoke is an index of fire because it's causally linked to fire's presence; where there's smoke, there's likely fire. In this context, the scales as a symbol of justice can be viewed as indexical. It represents justice not only through convention but also by its historical association with fairness, impartiality, and the weighing of evidence. Over time, this connection between the scales and justice becomes 'real' and 'causal' for users, albeit in a social sense.

As Saussure notes: "It must not be taken to imply that a signal depends on the free choice of the speaker," that is why "our symbol of justice, the scales, could hardly be replaced by a chariot". [CGL] [101]

Patchwork of Thought: A Tentative Answer to Derrida's Critical Reading

Let's turn now to Derrida's queries mentioned in the previous section of the article. Why should semiology primarily concern itself with arbitrary signs? Why should these signs realize better than the others the ideal of the semiological process? Why could linguistics, which studies such signs, become the general patron for all branches of semiology? Saussure didn't offer a definitive answer; he simply stated that " these are questions that must be asked when semiology is established ..." [CGL] [100]

However, it logically follows that, for him, semiology would focus on signs defined by their relation to other signs within a system rather than those tied to reality. Disciplines like meteorology handle signs like dark clouds indicating rain effectively without semiology's assistance.

Consider photography: a photograph of a person serves as an icon, representing a person in reality. It doesn't necessarily require an underlying system of rules for interpretation. Should semiotics take charge here or defer to photographers and artists? (Culler, 1976)

These points likely influenced Saussure's proposal that semiology should prioritize arbitrary signs, as they better encapsulate the essence of the science of signs and the need to look for underlying governing principles that render meaning possible.

Conclusion

In exploring the sign typologies presented by Peircean semiotics and Saussure's semiology, parallels emerge despite the differing terminology employed by each theorist. Peirce clasifies signs into icons, indexes, and symbols, while Saussure introduces distinctions between linguistic signs and "others", such as mime (natural signs) or the scales (symbols). However, beneath these surface disparities lies a common thread: the recognition that signs convey meaning through relations and differences within a system ruled by underlying principles that add coherence and render interpretation possible. 

Cite this text: 

Rodie. (2024). Return to Saussure. Retrieved from http://www.derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com

Related Post:

Shadows of Authenticity: A Misguided Arrow

(This piece discusses Derrida's assessment of onomatopoeia in Course in General Linguistics)

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/12/blog-post_24.html

Bibliography

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with Albert Riedlinger. Libraire Payot.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. With a new introduction by Roy Harris. Bloomsbury, 2013.

Culler, Jonathan. 1976. SAUSSURE. Fontana/Collins.

Derrida, Jacques. Glas. Translated by John P. Leavey, Jr., and Richard Rand. University of Nebraska Press, 1986.