TYPOLOGY OF SIGNS; SIGN, SIGNAL, INDEX LECTURER: Dr. HARLINAH SAHIB, M.HUM. CREATED BY: YUNUS F022191031 ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDY FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITAS HASANUDDIN MAKASSAR 2020 I. Introduction Literature is related to author’s view, as Rahman Stated in his article that “Literature as an identity is referred to as ethno-literature.” (Rahman, 2020). In another article Rahman stated that “Literature is a source of learning and entertainment for readers.” (Rahman, Amir P., & Tammasse, 2019). Sahib in her journal article explained about the forestry and how to use language as the medium put attention to the forest, she stated that “The desire and effort to improve forestry has not shown a delightful or wonderful result.” (Sahib, Rahman, Duli, & Asba, 2019). Semiotics began to become a major approach to cultural studies in the late 1960s, partly as a result of the work of Roland Barthes. The translation into English of his popular essays in a collection entitled Mythologies (Barthes 1957), followed in the 1970s and 1980s by many of his other writings, and greatly increased scholarly awareness of this approach. Writing in 1964, Barthes declared that 'semiology aims to take in any system of signs, whatever their substance and limits; images, gestures, musical sounds, objects, and the complex associations of all of these, which form the content of ritual, convention or public entertainment: these constitute, if not languages, at least systems of signification' (Barthes 1967, 9). The adoption of semiotics in Britain was influenced by its prominence in the work of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) at the University of Birmingham whilst the Centre was under the direction of the neo-Marxist sociologist Stuart Hall (director 1969-79). Although semiotics may be less central now within cultural and media studies (at least in its earlier, more structuralist form), it remains essential for anyone in the field to understand it. What individual scholars have to assess, of course, is whether and how semiotics may be useful in shedding light on any aspect of their concerns. Note that Saussure's term, 'semiology' is sometimes used to refer to the Saussurean tradition, whilst 'semiotics' sometimes refers to the Peircean tradition, but that nowadays the term 'semiotics' is more likely to be used as an umbrella term to embrace the whole field (Nöth 1990, 14). Semiotics is not widely institutionalized as an academic discipline. It is a field of study involving many different theoretical stances and methodological tools. One of the broadest definitions is that of Umberto Eco, who states that 'semiotics is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign' (Eco 1976, 7). Semiotics involves the study not only of what we refer to as 'signs' in everyday speech, but of anything which 'stands for' something else. In a semiotic sense, signs take the form of words, images, sounds, gestures and objects. Whilst for the linguist Saussure, 'semiology' was 'a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life', for the philosopher Charles Peirce 'semiotic' was the 'formal doctrine of signs' which was closely related to Logic (Peirce 1931-58, 2.227). For him, 'a sign is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity' (Peirce 1931-58, 2.228). He declared that 'every thought is a sign' (Peirce 1931-58, 1.538; cf. 5.250ff, 5.283ff). Contemporary semioticians study signs not in isolation but as part of semiotic 'sign systems' (such as a medium or genre). They study how meanings are made: as such, being concerned not only with communication but also with the construction and maintenance of reality. Semiotics and that branch of linguistics known as semantics have a common concern with the meaning of signs, but John Sturrock argues that whereas semantics focuses on what words mean, semiotics is concerned with how signs mean (Sturrock 1986, 22). For C W Morris (deriving this threefold classification from Peirce), semiotics embraced semantics, along with the other traditional branches of linguistics: semantics: the relationship of signs to what they stand for; syntactics (or syntax): the formal or structural relations between signs; pragmatics: the relation of signs to interpreters (Morris 1938, 6-7). Semiotics is often employed in the analysis of texts (although it is far more than just a mode of textual analysis). Here it should perhaps be noted that a 'text' can exist in any medium and may be verbal, non-verbal, or both, despite the logocentric bias of this distinction. The term text usually refers to a message which has been recorded in some way (e.g. writing, audio- and video-recording) so that it is physically independent of its sender or receiver. A text is an assemblage of signs (such as words, images, sounds and/or gestures) constructed (and interpreted) with reference to the conventions associated with a genre and in a particular medium of communication. Rahman in his journal article stated that ”Humans and their environment are two things that are inseparable from one another. Humans interact with components of the physical environment, both biotic (animals and plants) as well as with abiotic components (soil, water, rocks and others).” (Rahman, 2019). Communication is the main point in society, semiotics is the way to understand the meaning of the language in order to built the communication among people in this world. II. Discussion Typology of Signs: Sign, Signal, Index Semioticians have not yet agreed on a general typology of signs. The problem is only partly one of finding a common terminology. Partly it is also due to the multidimensionality of the criteria on which typologies of signs can be based. Some proposals for a typology of signs are an integral part of the semiotic theory of their authors. Such proposals are discussed in the chapters on Peirce and Morris (partly see also History of Semiotics). This chapter discusses some common typological distinctions and major dimensions of typologies of signs. It gives a survey of common restrictive definitions of the term sign and discusses definitions of the signal and of the index. For further major types of sign, see Symbol and Icon. 1. Some Proposals for a Typology of Signs Medieval semioticians had a great interest in the typology of signs. Modern semioticians concerned with this topic are Peirce, Morris, Husserl, Cassirer, Eco, and Sebeok. For further discussions of the typology of signs, see Schaff (1960: 14580), Resnikow (1964: on indices, signals, and symbols), Lyons (1977: on indices, icons, symbols, and symptoms), Nattiez (1979), and Clarke (1987: on signals and natural and conventional signs). For Bühler's distinction between symbols, symptoms, and signals, see also Function (3.1). 1.1 Natural and Nonnatural Signs Medieval semiotics began by distinguishing natural (signum naturale) from conventional (signum ad placidum) or intentional signs. Modern semiotics has raised several objections against this dichotomy. 1.1.1 Nature vs. Convention and Intention Augustine opposed natural and conventional signs (cf. Sign 2.2.2; for further aspects of Augustine's typological system, see Todorov 1977: 4554): Natural signs are those which, apart from any intention or desire of using them as signs, do yet lead to the knowledge of something else, as, for example, smoke when it indicates fire. For it is not from any intention of making it a sign that it is so, but through attention to experience we come to know that fire is beneath, even when nothing but smoke can be seen. [ . ] Conventional signs, on the other hand, are those which living beings mutually exchange for the purpose of showing [ . ] the feelings of their minds, or their perceptions, or their thoughts. (397: 637 = II. 12) Augustine's definition already mentions the criterion of intentionality. Roger Bacon later considered this criterion to be the most fundamental one. His basic distinction was between natural and intentional signs (for his complete typological system, see Howell 1987). 1.1.2 Objections against Nature In modern semiotics, two kinds of objections have been raised against accepting the nature vs. convention dichotomy as fundamental in the typology of signs: (1) objections claiming that any kind of semiosis must be based on some degree of conventionality (Eco's position, for example). (2) objections pointing out that the basic dichotomy is insufficient because icons and pictures, for example, are neither simply natural nor conventional. A solution to the latter objection is Peirce's indexicon symbol trichotomy. For a modern theory of natural signs, see Clarke (1987). 1.2 Symbol vs. Signal or Index The fundamental dichotomy established by medieval semiotics reappears in new theoretical contexts in some modern theories of semiotics. 1.2.1 Husserl Husserl (1890; 19001901: 269) drew a basic distinction between expressions (Ausdruck), which presuppose an intentional meaning endowing act (cf. Meaning 3.1.3), and indices (Anzeichen, translated as indication), where "we usually feel the connection" of the sign vehicle with the simultaneously or successively present object (Husserl 1900: 274). 1.2.2 Cassirer and Langer In Cassirer's Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, the primary distinction is between signals (or signs; cf. 3.1) and symbols: "a signal is a part of the physical world of being; a symbol is a part of the human world of meaning. Signals are 'operators'; symbols are 'designators.' Signals [ . ] have a sort of physical or substantial being; symbols have only a functional value" (1944: 32). In Cassirer's tradition, Langer divides the realm of signs into those which indicate (signals, symptoms, natural signs) and those which represent (symbols, names, pictures, etc.) (1942: 3539, 5467). 1.3 Sebeok's Six Signs Sebeok establishes a typology comprising six species of signs (1976: 11747). His definitions are: 1.3.1 Signal When a sign token mechanically or conventionally triggers some reaction on the part of a receiver, it is said to function as a signal.