Signs in Science and Language: The Theoretical Crossroads of Peirce and Saussure

Introduction

This article compares the theories of signs proposed by Charles Sanders Peirce and Ferdinand de Saussure, highlighting their distinct perspectives shaped by their roles as a scientist and a linguist, respectively. Both Peirce and Saussure were foundational figures in the study of signs, yet their approaches diverged significantly. Peirce’s semiotics emerged from his broader scientific inquiries into logic and cognition, classifying signs into icons, indices, and symbols, each playing a role in interpreting and interacting with the world. In contrast, Saussure’s semiology focused on linguistic signs, analyzing language as a structured system of arbitrary and conventional signs that convey meaning.

Historically, Peirce and Saussure laid the groundwork for what would later evolve into the interdisciplinary field of semiotics. Saussure coined the term “semiology” from the Greek word “semeion,” intending to “investigate the nature of signs and the laws governing them.” However, post-Saussurean theorists often referred to this field as “semiotics,” expanding its scope beyond linguistic signs to encompass all forms of signification, including visual, social, and cultural signs. Peirce’s semiotics, with its triadic model and emphasis on reasoning, complemented this expansion by incorporating a broader range of sign types and their interplay.

This article explores how Peirce and Saussure approached the study of signs, aiming to illuminate their distinct yet interrelated contributions to understanding meaning.

Peirce’s Semiotics: A Scientific Approach

Charles Sanders Peirce’s semiotic theory categorizes signs into three main types: icons, indices, and symbols, each playing a distinct role in reasoning and cognition. Icons represent their objects through resemblance, such as a portrait resembling the person it depicts. Indices are directly connected to their objects through physical or causal links, like smoke indicating fire. Symbols, in contrast, represent their objects through arbitrary conventions and learned associations, such as words or mathematical formulas. Peirce’s scientific approach aimed to understand how these diverse types of signs interact to facilitate thought processes, enabling humans to navigate, interpret, and reason about the world.

A key aspect of Peirce’s theory is his observation that symbols “grow out of other symbols,” emphasizing their dependence on cultural conventions and social agreements. Unlike icons and indices, which have direct or natural connections to their objects, symbols rely entirely on a network of other symbols for their meaning. For example, the word “tree” has no inherent connection to the concept of a tree but gains significance through its use within a language system shaped by communal usage. This self-referential nature highlights the evolving character of symbols and their ability to build upon existing signs to create new layers of meaning.

Peirce’s approach is fundamentally scientific, treating signs as integral to reasoning. Effective reasoning involves a dynamic interplay between icons, indices, and symbols, each contributing uniquely to understanding. Icons offer intuitive visualizations, indices ground abstract thought in reality, and symbols facilitate complex, rule-based thinking. This interaction enables us to connect ideas, solve problems, and refine our understanding of the world, making reasoning an active, sign-based process that extends beyond mere symbolic manipulation.

Saussure’s Semiology: A Linguistic Approach

Ferdinand de Saussure’s theory of semiology focuses on the study of signs, particularly linguistic signs, within a broader system that governs meaning generation and comprehension. For Saussure, language is not merely a collection of words but a structured system of arbitrary and conventional signs, consisting of a signifier and a signified, terms that he coined. This relationship is regulated by an underlying system of rules Saussure calls “la langue,” which enables communication.

Saussure prioritizes the study of linguistic signs due to their unique complexity and reliance on convention. Unlike Peirce’s icons and indices, which have direct relationships with their referents, Saussure’s linguistic signs are entirely arbitrary, with no inherent connection between the signifier and the signified. This arbitrariness means that meaning arises not from individual signs but from the network of relations between them within “la langue.” Thus, understanding language involves comprehending the intricate web of associations defining each sign.

He introduced “semiology” as a science of signs encompassing all forms of human signification, with language serving as its most developed model. Over time, the term evolved into “semiotics,” expanding its scope beyond linguistic signs to include all sign systems. Saussure’s emphasis on systemic and relational aspects continues to influence our understanding of signs in a communicative context.

Points of Contact: Shared Interests and Theoretical Overlaps

Despite their differing backgrounds, Charles Sanders Peirce and Ferdinand de Saussure share significant theoretical overlaps, particularly in their recognition of the importance of systems and conventions in the functioning of signs. Both theorists stress that signs do not operate in isolation but within structured systems that govern their meaning. Peirce’s acknowledgment of conventions is evident in his analysis of symbols, which he views as reliant on social agreements and prior signs. Similarly, Saussure emphasizes the role of systemic rules, stating that “where there are signs, there is system,” highlighting that language depends on an underlying network of differences and conventions to make linguistic signs intelligible.

Another point of contact is their treatment of the arbitrary nature of linguistic signs (Saussure) and symbols (Peirce). Saussure notes that the relationship between the signifier and the signified in linguistic signs is arbitrary and dependent on the structured network of “la langue,” with no inherent connection between them. Peirce, approaching this from a broader perspective, also underscores the arbitrariness of symbols, observing that they “grow out of other symbols,” meaning their significance is derived from an evolving web of prior interpretations rather than direct links to their objects.

The overlapping terminology used by Peirce and Saussure reveals their common ground but also complicates their theoretical frameworks. Saussure’s concept of the “linguistic sign” aligns with what Peirce refers to as a “symbol” or “sign proper.” This shared vocabulary underscores the need to understand these terms within each theorist’s unique system: for Peirce, symbols are one type within a triadic model, while for Saussure, linguistic signs are central to a structured, rule-governed system of meaning.

Divergent Views and Goals

Charles Sanders Peirce and Ferdinand de Saussure’s differing backgrounds as a scientist and a linguist significantly shaped their theories of signs. Peirce’s scientific approach aimed to understand cognition and reasoning by exploring how different types of signs—icons, indices, and symbols—contribute to human thought. His goal was to analyze how these signs interact to facilitate understanding and reasoning. In contrast, Saussure’s focus was more specialized, concentrating on how language functions as a system of signs within the framework of “la langue.” Saussure was concerned with the rules and conventions that govern linguistic signs, aiming to uncover the underlying structure of language, which he viewed as “the most complex and widespread of systems of expression,” highlighting its unique role in human interaction.

A key difference between Peirce and Saussure lies in their conceptions of the sign. Peirce’s triadic model includes the representamen (the form of the sign), the object (what the sign refers to), and the interpretant (the meaning generated by the sign), creating a dynamic understanding of sign functions. Saussure’s dyadic model, however, focuses solely on the relationship between the signifier and the signified, excluding the referent. This distinction underscores their differing goals: Peirce’s model addresses the sign’s interaction with the real world and its role in reasoning, while Saussure’s model emphasizes the internal structure and relational dynamics within language.

The functions of signs in their theories reflect these differences. Peirce’s signs support reasoning by integrating icons, indices, and symbols to deepen our understanding of the world.  Saussure is concerned with how signs derive meaning from their relationships within the system rather than direct reference to external reality. This divergence highlights the distinct approaches each theorist took in exploring the nature and function of signs.

The Role of Underlying Systems

Both Peirce and Saussure highlight the importance of underlying systems in their theories of signs, but they conceptualize these systems in fundamentally different ways. For Peirce, the dynamic interplay of signs—icons, indices, and symbols—is central to reasoning. He views reasoning as “the art of marshalling such signs, and of finding out the truth,” suggesting that understanding is an active process involving various types of signs. In his framework, signs do not function in isolation; their meaning emerges through ongoing interpretation, with symbols evolving from other symbols to create a self-referential network. This dynamic interaction integrates direct references (indices), intuitive representations (icons), and abstract, conventional symbols, making his approach adaptable and comprehensive.

In contrast, Saussure’s semiology focuses on a highly structured system where signs derive their meaning solely from their position within a network of differences. Linguistic signs gain significance from their relationships with other signs, rather than from any direct link to their referents. This systemic structure, termed “la langue,” is a set of rules and conventions that render signs intelligible. Saussure’s emphasis on the relational nature of signs highlights the complexities of linguistic analysis, where meaning is shaped by an underlying framework of distinctions and conventions, rather than by direct reference to the external world.

Conclusion

Peirce and Saussure provide two distinct yet complementary approaches to the study of signs, each shaped by their respective disciplinary aims. Peirce, as a scientist, developed a triadic model of signs that highlights the dynamic interplay between representamen, object, and interpretant, illustrating how signs facilitate reasoning and connect thought to the external world. In contrast, Saussure, as a linguist, focused on the dyadic structure of the linguistic sign (signifier and signified) within a rule-governed system, emphasizing their arbitrary and conventional nature. While Peirce’s theory encompasses a broader range of signs, including icons and indices, Saussure’s work is specifically concerned with the complexities of language as a structured system of differences. Both theorists, however, recognize the significance of underlying systems in making signs intelligible, even if their conceptualizations differ.

The impact of Peirce’s and Saussure’s theories on contemporary semiotics is profound. Saussure’s focus on structural relationships within language paved the way for structuralism and influenced later developments in semiotics, broadening its scope beyond Saussure’s original notion of “semiology.” Peirce’s emphasis on the interpretative process and the dynamic nature of sign interaction has expanded the field, affecting various areas from philosophy to communication studies.

Considering both Peirce’s and Saussure’s perspectives is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the science of signs. While “semiology” and “semiotics” are often used interchangeably, they originated with distinct goals and frameworks. Recognizing these differences enhances our understanding of how signs function across different contexts, underscoring the importance of both scientific reasoning and linguistic structure in decoding meaning in a complex and dynamic world.

Related Post

The Art of Reasoning: Peirce’s Triadic Signs and Their Interplay in the Discovery of Truth

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/09/blog-post_09.html

From Icons to Symbols: Peirce, Piaget, and Pavlov on the Evolution of Human Cognition

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/09/blog-post_08.html

Bibliography

Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1894. "What Is a Sign?" Accessed September 8, 2024. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/peirce1.htm

The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce,
reproducing Vols. I-VI ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931-1935), Vols. VII-VIII ed. Arthur W. Burks (same publisher, 1958)

Saussure, Ferdinand de. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with the collaboration of Albert Riedlinger. Arbre d’Or, Genève, 2005.

Bouquet, Simon, Rudolf Engler, and Antoinette Weil, eds. ESCRITOS SOBRE LINGÜÍSTICA GENERAL. Translated by Clara Ubaldina Lorda Mur. Original title: Écrits de linguistique générale, de Ferdinand de Saussure. © Éditions Gallimard, 2002.

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