Roland Barthes Semiology

8/13/2019 Roland Barthes Semiology

1/22

Roland Barthes (1964)

Elements of Semiology

Source:Elements of Semiology, 1964, publ. Hill and Wang, 196. !he "irst hal" o" theboo# is reproduced here.

INTRODUCTION

$n his Course in General Linguistics, "irst published in 1916, Saussure postulated the

e%istence o" a general science o" signs, or Se&iolog', o" hich linguistics ould "or&

onl' one part. Se&iolog' there"ore ai&s to ta#e in an' s'ste& o" signs, hateer their

substance and li&its* i&ages, gestures, &usical sounds, ob+ects, and the co&ple%

associations o" all these, hich "or& the content o" ritual, conention or publicentertain&ent: these constitute, i" not languages, at least s'ste&s o" signi"ication. !here is

no doubt that the deelop&ent o" &ass co&&unications con"ers particular releancetoda' upon the ast "ield o" signi"'ing &edia, +ust hen the success o" disciplines such as

linguistics, in"or&ation theor', "or&al logic and structural anthropolog' proide se&antic

anal'sis ith ne instru&ents. !here is at present a #ind o" de&and "or se&iolog',ste&&ing not "ro& the "ads o" a "e scholars, but "ro& the er' histor' o" the &odern

orld.

!he "act re&ains that, although Saussures ideas hae &ade great heada', se&iolog'

re&ains a tentatie science. !he reason "or this &a' ell be si&ple. Saussure, "olloed in

this b' the &ain se&iologists, thought that linguistics &erel' "or&ed a part o" the generalscience o" signs. -o it is "ar "ro& certain that in the social li"e o" toda' there are to be

"ound an' e%tensie s'ste&s o" signs outside hu&an language. Se&iolog' has so "arconcerned itsel" ith codes o" no &ore than slight interest, such as the Higha' ode*

the &o&ent e go on to s'ste&s here the sociological signi"icance is &ore than

super"icial, e are once &ore con"ronted ith language. it is true that ob+ects, i&ages and

patterns o" behaiour can signi"', and do so on a large scale, but neer autono&ousl'*eer' se&iological s'ste& has its linguistic ad&i%ture. Where there is a isual substance,

"or e%a&ple, the &eaning is con"ir&ed b' being duplicated in a linguistic &essage (hich

happens in the case o" the cine&a, adertising, co&ic strips, press photograph', etc.) sothat at least a part o" the iconic &essage is, in ter&s o" structural relationship, either

redundant or ta#en up b' the linguistic s'ste&. /s "or collections o" ob+ects (clothes,"ood), the' en+o' the status o" s'ste&s onl' in so "ar as the' pass through the rela' o"language, hich e%tracts their signi"iers (in the "or& o" no&enclature) and na&es their

signi"ieds (in the "or&s o" usages or reasons): e are, &uch &ore than in "or&er ti&es,

and despite the spread o" pictorial illustration, a ciilisation o" the ritten ord. 0inall',

and in &ore general ter&s, it appears increasingl' &ore di""icult to conceie a s'ste& o"i&ages and ob+ects hosesignifieds can e%ist independentl' o" language: to perceie

hat a substance signi"ies is ineitabl' to "all bac# on the indiiduation o" a language:


2/22

there is no &eaning hich is not designated, and the orld o" signi"ieds is none other

than that o" language.

!hus, though or#ing at the outset on nonlinguistic substances, se&iolog' is reuired,sooner or later, to "ind language (in the ordinar' sense o" the ter&) in its path, not onl' as

a &odel, but also as co&ponent, rela' or signi"ied. 2en so, such language is not uitethat o" the linguist: it is a second3order language, ith its unities no longer &one&es or

phone&es, but larger "rag&ents o" discourse re"erring to ob+ects or episodes hose&eaning underlieslanguage, but can neer e%ist independentl' o" it. Se&iolog' is

there"ore perhaps destined to be absorbed into a trans-linguistics, the &aterials o" hich

&a' be &'th, narratie, +ournalis&, or on the other hand ob+ects o" our ciilisation, in so"ar as the' arespoken (through press, prospectus, interie, conersation and perhaps

een the inner language, hich is ruled b' the las o" i&agination). $n "act, e &ust no

"ace the possibilit' o" inerting Saussures declaration: linguistics is not a part o" thegeneral science o" signs, een a priileged part, it is se&iolog' hich is a part o"

linguistics: to be precise, it is that part coering thegreat signifying unities o" discourse.

B' this inersion e &a' e%pect to bring to light the unit' o" the research at presentbeing done in anthropolog', sociolog', ps'choanal'sis and st'listics round the concept o"

signi"ication.

!hough it ill doubtless be reuired so&e da' to change its character, se&iolog' &ust

"irst o" all, i" not e%actl' ta#e de"inite shape, at least try itself out,e%plore its possibilitiesand i&possibilities. !his is "easible onl' on the basis o" preparator' inestigation. /nd

indeed it &ust be ac#noledged in adance that such an inestigation is both di""ident

and rash: di""ident because se&iological #noledge at present can be onl' a cop' o"

linguistic #noledge* rash because this #noledge &ust be applied "orthith, at least as apro+ect, to non3linguistic ob+ects.

The Elements here presented hae as their sole ai& the e%traction "ro& linguistics o"

anal'tical concepts, hich e thin# a priori to be su""icientl' general to startse&iological research on its a'. $n asse&bling the&, it is not presupposed that the' ill

re&ain intact during the course o" research* nor that se&iolog' ill ala's be "orced to

"ollo the linguistic &odel closel'. We are &erel' suggesting and elucidating a

ter&inolog' in the hope that it &a' enable an initial (albeit proisional) order to beintroduced into the heterogeneous &ass o" signi"icant "acts. $n "act hat e purport to do

is to "urnish a principle o" classi"ication o" the uestions.

!hese ele&ents o" se&iolog' ill there"ore be grouped under "our &ain headings

borroed "ro& structural linguistics:

$. Language and Speech.

$$. Signified and Signifier.

$$$. Syntagm and System.$.Denotation and Connotation.


3/22

$t ill be seen that these headings appear in dichoto&ic "or&* the reader ill also notice

that the binar' classi"ication o" concepts see&s "reuent in structural thoughts as i" the

&etalanguage o" the linguist reproduced, li#e a &irror, the binar' structure o" the s'ste&it is describing* and e shall point out, as the occasion arises, that it ould probabl' be

er' instructie to stud' the pre3e&inence o" binar' classi"ication in the discourse o"

conte&porar' social sciences. !he ta%ono&' o" these sciences, i" it ere ell #non,ould undoubtedl' proide a great deal o" in"or&ation on hat &ight be called the "ield

o" intellectual i&agination in our ti&e.

I. LANGUAGE (LANGUE) AND SPEECH

I.1. IN LINGUISTICS

$.1.1In Saussure !he (dichoto&ic) concept o" language!speech is central in Saussure

and as certainl' a great noelt' in relation to earlier linguistics hich sought to "ind thecauses o" historical changes in the eolution o" pronunciation, spontaneous associations

and the or#ing o" analog', and as there"ore a linguistics o" the indiidual act. $nor#ing out this "a&ous dichoto&', Saussure started "ro& the &ulti"or& andheterogeneous nature o" language, hich appears at "irst sight as an unclassi"iable realit'

the unit' o" hich cannot be brought to light, since it parta#es at the sa&e ti&e o" the

ph'sical, the ph'siological, the &ental, the indiidual and the social. -o this disorderdisappears i", "ro& this heterogeneous hole, is e%tracted a purel' social ob+ect, the

s'ste&atised set o" conentions necessar' to co&&unication, indi""erent to the material

o" the signals hich co&pose it, and hich is a language"langue#$ as opposed to hich

speech "parole# coers the purel' indiidual part o" language (phonation, application o"the rules and contingent co&binations o" signs).

$.1.5. The language "langue# % language is there"ore, so to spea#, language &inusspeech: it is at the sa&e ti&e a social institution and a s'ste& o" alues. /s a social

institution, it is b' no &eans an act, and it is not sub+ect to an' pre&editation. $t is thesocial part o" language, the indiidual cannot b' hi&sel" either create or &odi"' it* it is

essentiall' a collectie contract hich one &ust accept in its entiret' i" one ishes to

co&&unicate. oreoer, this social product is autono&ous, li#e a ga&e ith its onrules, "or it can be handled onl' a"ter a period o" learning. /s a s'ste& o" alues, a

language is &ade o" a certain nu&ber o" ele&ents, each one o" hich is at the sa&e ti&e

the euialent o" a gien uantit' o" things and a ter& o" a larger "unction, in hich are"ound, in a di""erential order, other correlatie alues: "ro& the point o" ie o" the

language, the sign is li#e a coin, hich has the alue o" a certain a&ount o" goods hich

it allos one to bu', but also has alue in relation to other coins, in a greater or lesserdegree. !he institutional and the s'ste&atic aspect are o" course connected: it is because a

language is a s'ste& o" contractual alues (in part arbitrar', or, &ore e%actl',

un&otiated) that it resists the &odi"ications co&ing "ro& a single indiidual, and is

conseuentl' a social institution.

$.1.7. Speech "parole# $n contrast to the language, hich is both institution and s'ste&,

speech is essentiall' an indiidual act o" selection and actualisation* it is &ade in the "irst


4/22

place o" the co&bination than#s to hich the spea#ing sub+ect can use the code o" the

language ith a ie to e%pressing his personal thought (this e%tended speech could be

called discourse#, - and secondl' b' the ps'cho3ph'sical &echanis&s hich allo hi& toe%teriorise these co&binations. $t is certain that phonation, "or instance, cannot he

con"used ith the language* neither the institution nor the s'ste& are altered i" the

indiidual ho resorts to the& spea#s loudl' or so"tl', ith slo or rapid delier', etc.!he co&binatie aspect o" speech is o" course o" capital i&portance, "or it i&plies that

speech is constituted b' the recurrence o" identical signs: it is because signs are repeated

in successie discourses and ithin one and the sa&e discourse (although the' areco&bined in accordance ith the in"inite diersit' o" arious peoples speech) that each

sign beco&es an ele&ent o" the language* and it is because speech is essentiall' a

co&binatie actiit' that it corresponds to an indiidual act and not to a pure creation.

$.1.4. The dialectics of language and speech 8anguage and speech: each o" these toter&s o" course achiees its "ull de"inition onl' in the dialectical process hich unites one

to the other: there is no language ithout speech, and no speech outside language: it is in

this e%change that the real linguistic pra%is is situated, as erleau3ont' has pointed out./nd . Brondal rites, / language is a purel' abstract entit', a nor& hich stands

aboe indiiduals, a set o" essential t'pes, hich speech actualises in an in"inite ariet'

o" a's. 8anguage and speech are there"ore in a relation o" reciprocal

co&prehensieness. ;n the one hand, the language is the treasure deposited b' thepractice o" speech, in the sub+ects belonging to the sa&e co&&unit' and, since it is a

collectie su&&a o" indiidual i&prints, it &ust re&ain inco&plete at the leel o" each

isolated indiidual: a language does not e%ist per"ectl' e%cept in the spea#ing &ass* onecannot handle speech e%cept b' draing on the language. But conersel', a language is

possible onl' starting "ro& speech: historicall', speech pheno&ena ala's precede

language pheno&ena (it is speech hich &a#es language eole), and geneticall', a

language is constituted in the indiidual through his learning "ro& the eniron&entalspeech (one does not teach gra&&ar and ocabular' hich are, broadl' spea#ing, the

language, to babies). !o su&, a language is at the sa&e ti&e the product and the

instru&ent o" speech: their relationship is there"ore a genuinel' dialectical one. $t ill benoticed (an i&portant "act hen e co&e to se&iological prospects) that there could not

possibl' be (at least according to Saussure) a linguistics o" speech, since an' speech, as

soon as it is grasped as a process o" co&&unication, is alreadypart o" the language: thelatter onl' can be the ob+ect o" a science. !his disposes o" to uestions at the outset: it is

useless to onder hether speech &ust be studied &efore the language: the opposite is

i&possible: one can onl' stud' speech straight aa' inas&uch as it re"lects the language(inas&uch as it is glottic). it is +ust as useless to onder at the outset ho to separate the

language "ro& speech: this is no preli&inar' operation, but on the contrar' the er'

essence o" linguistic and later se&iological inestigation: to separate the language "ro&speech &eans ipso factoconstituting the proble&atics o" the &eaning.

$.1.


5/22

H+el&sle hesitated beteen s'ste&, pattern or "ra&eor# "or this plane):= this is

Saussures langue in the strictest sense o" the ord. $t &ight &ean, "or instance, the

0rench r as de"ined phonologicall' b' its place in a series o" oppositions* ii) the norm,hich is the language as &aterial "or&, a"ter it has been de"ined b' so&e degree o" social

realisation, but still independent o" this realisation* it ould &ean the r in oral 0rench,

hicheer a' it is pronounced (but not that o" ritten 0rench)* iii) the usage, hich isthe language as a set o" habits preailing in a gien societ': this ould &ean the r as it is

pronounced in so&e regions. !he relations o" deter&ination beteen speech, usage,

nor& and sche&a are aried: the nor& deter&ines usage and speech* usage deter&inesspeech but is also deter&ined b' it* the sche&a is deter&ined at the sa&e ti&e b' speech,

usage and nor&. !hus appear (in "act) to "unda&ental planes: i) theschema, the theor'

o" hich &erges ith that o" the "or& and o" the linguistic institution* ii) the group

norm-usage-speech, the theor' o" hich &erges ith that o" the substance and o" thee%ecution. /s according to H+el&sle 3 nor& is a pure &ethodical abstraction and speech

a single concretion (a transient docu&ent), e "ind in the end a ne dichotomy

schema!usage, Which replaces the couple language!speech. !his redistribution b'

H+el&sle is not ithout interest, hoeer: it is a radical "or&alisation o" the concept o"the language (under the na&e o"schema# and eli&inates concrete speech in "aour o" a

&ore social concept: usage. !his "or&alisation o" the language and socialisation o"speech enables us to put all the positie and substantial ele&ents under the heading o"

speech, and all the di""erentiating ones under that o" the language, and the adantage o"

this, as e shall see presentl', is to re&oe one o" the contradictions brought about b'Saussures distinction beteen the language and the speech.

$.1.6. Some pro&lems Whateer its use"ulness and its "ecundit', this distinction

neertheless brings so&e proble&s in its a#e. 8et us &ention onl' three.

Here is the "irst: is it possible to identi"' the language ith the code and the speech iththe &essage> !his identi"ication is i&possible according to H+el&sles theor'. .?uiraud re"uses it "or, he sa's, the conentions o" the code are e%plicit, and those o" the

language i&plicit* but it is certainl' acceptable in the Saussurean "ra&eor#, and /.

artinet ta#es it up.

We encounter an analogous proble& i" e re"lect on the relations beteen speech ands'ntag&. Speech, as e hae seen, can be de"ined (outside the ariations o" intensit' in

the phonation) as a (aried) co&bination o" (recurrent) signs* but at the leel o" the

language itsel", hoeer, there alread' e%ist so&e "i%ed s'ntag&s (Saussure cites aco&pound ord like magnanimus#. !he threshold hich separates the language "ro&

speech &a' there"ore be precarious, since it is here constituted b' a certain degree o"

co&bination. !his leads to the uestion o" an anal'sis o" those "i%ed s'ntag&s hosenature is neertheless linguistic (glottic) since the' are treated as one b' paradig&atic

ariation (H+el&sle calls this anal'sis &orpho3s'nta%). Saussure had noticed this

pheno&enon o" transition: there is probabl' also a hole series o" sentences hich

belong to the language, and hich the indiidual no longer has to co&bine hi&sel". $"these stereot'pes belong to the language and no longer to speech, and i" it proes true that

nu&erous se&iological s'ste&s use the& to a great e%tent, then it is a real linguistics of


6/22

the syntagmthat e &ust e%pect, hich ill be used "or all strongl' stereot'ped &odes

o" riting.

0inall', the third proble& e shall indicate concerns the relations o" the language ithreleance (that is to sa', ith the signi"'ing ele&ent proper in the unit). !he language

and releance hae so&eti&es been identi"ied (b' !rubet@#o' hi&sel"), thus thrustingoutside the language all the non3releant ele&ents, that is, the co&binatie ariants. Aet

this identi"ication raises a proble&, "or there are co&binatie ariants (hich there"ore at"irst sight are a speech pheno&enon) hich are neertheless i&posed, that is to sa',

arbitrar' : in 0rench, it is reuired b' the language that the $ should be oiceless a"ter a

oiceless consonant (oncle) and oiced a"ter a oiced consonant (ongle) ithout these"acts leaing the real& o" phonetics to belong to that o" phonolog'. We see the theoretical

conseuences: &ust e ad&it that, contrar' to Saussures a""ir&ation (in the language

there are onl' di""erences), ele&ents hich are not di""erentiating can all the sa&ebelong to the language (to the institution)> artinet thin#s so* 0rei atte&pts to e%tricate

Saussure "ro& the contradiction b' localising the di""erences insu&phonemes, so that, "or

instance,pcould not be di""erentiating in itsel", but onl', in it, the consonantic, occlusieoiceless labial "eatures, etc. We shall not here ta#e sides on this uestion* "ro& a

se&iological point o" ie, e shall onl' re&e&ber the necessit' o" accepting the

e%istence o" s'ntag&s and ariations hich are not signi"'ing and are 'et glottic, that is,

belonging to the language. !his linguistics, hardl' "oreseen b' Saussure, can assu&e agreat i&portance hereer "i%ed s'ntag&s (or stereot'pes) are "ound in abundance,

hich is probabl' the case in &ass3languages, and eer' ti&e non3signi"'ing ariations

"or& a second3order corpus o" signi"iers, hich is the case in strongl' connatedlanguages : the rolled ris a &ere co&binatie ariant at the denotatie leel, but in the

speech o" the theatre, "or instance, it signals a countr' accent and there"ore is a part o" a

code, ithout hich the &essage o" ruralness could not be either e&itted or perceied.

$.1.. The idiolect !o "inish on the sub+ect o" language!speech in linguistics, e shallindicate to appended concepts isolated since Saussures da'. !he "irst is that o" the

idiolect. !his is the language inas&uch as it is spo#en b' a single indiidual (artinet),

or again the hole set o" habits o" a single indiidual at a gien &o&ent (2beling).Ca#obson has uestioned the interest o" this notion: the language is ala's socialised,

een at the indiidual leel, "or in spea#ing to so&ebod' one ala's tries to spea# &ore

or less the others language, especiall' as "ar as the ocabular' is concerned (priatepropert' in the sphere o" language does not e%ist) : so the idiolect ould appear to be

largel' an illusion. We shall neertheless retain "ro& this notion the idea that it can be

use"ul to designate the "olloing realities: i) the language o" the aphasic ho does not

understand other people and does not receie a &essage con"or&ing to his on erbalpatterns* this language, then, ould be a pure idiolect (Ca#obson)* ii) the st'le o" a

riter, although this is ala's peraded b' certain erbal patterns co&ing "ro& tradition

that is, "ro& the co&&unit'* iii) "inall', e can openl' broaden the notion, and de"ine theidiolect as the language o" a linguistic co&&unit', that is, o" a group o" persons ho all

interpret in the sa&e a' all linguistic state&ents: the idiolect ould then correspond

roughl' to hat e hae atte&pted to describe elsehere under the na&e o" riting.We can sa' in general that the hesitations in de"ining the concept o" idiolect onl' re"lect


7/22

the need "or an inter&ediate entit' beteen speech and language (as as alread' proed

b' the usage theor' in H+el&sle), or, i" 'ou li#e, the need "or a speech hich is alread'

institutionalised but not 'et radicall' open to "or&alisation, as the language is.

$.1..Duple* Structures$" e agree to identi"' language!speech and code!message, e

&ust here &ention a second appended concept hich Ca#obson has elaborated under thena&e o" duple* structures$ e shall do so onl' brie"l', "or his e%position o" it has been

reprinted. $! We shall &erel' point out that under the na&e +duple* structures+ Ca#obsonstudies certain special cases o" the general relation code!message to cases o" circularit'

and to cases o" oerlapping. i) reported speech, or &essages ithin a &essage (D):

this is the general case o" indirect st'les. ii) proper na&es: the na&e signi"ies an' personto ho& this na&e is attributed and the circularit' o" the code is eident (D):ohn

means aperson named ohn$ iii) cases o" auton'&' (Rat is a s'llable): the ord is here

used as its on designation, the &essage oerlaps the code (D) 3 this structure isi&portant, "or it coers the elucidating interpretations, na&el', circu&locutions,

s'non'&s and translations "ro& one language into another* i) the shifters are probabl'

the &ost interesting double structure: the &ost read' e%a&ple is that o" the personalpronoun "I, thou# an indicial s'&bol hich unites ithin itsel" the conentional and the

e%istential bonds: "or it is onl' b' irtue o" a conentional rule that $ represents its ob+ect

(so that $ beco&es ego in 8atin, ichin ?er&an, etc.), but on the other hand, since it

designates the person ho utters it, it can onl' re"er e%istentiall' to the utterance (D).Ca#obson re&inds us that personal pronouns hae long been thought to be the &ost

pri&itie la'er o" language (Hu&boldt), but that in his ie, the' point rather to a

co&ple% and adult relationship beteen the code and the &essage: the personal pronounsare the last ele&ents to be acuired in the childs speech and the "irst to be lost in aphasia*

the' are ter&s o" trans"erence hich are di""icult to handle. !heshiftertheor' see&s as

'et to hae been little e%ploited* 'et it is, a priori, er' "ruit"ul to obsere the code

struggling ith the &essage, so to spea# (the conerse being &uch &ore co&&onplace)*perhaps (this is onl' a or#ing h'pothesis) it is on this side, that o" theshifters, hich

are, as e sa, indicial s'&bols according to eirces ter&inolog', that e should see#

the se&iological de"inition o" the &essages hich stand on the "rontiers o" language,notabl' certain "or&s o" literar' discourse.

I.. SE!IOLOGICAL PROSPECTS

$.5.1. The language, speech and the social sciences. !he sociological scope o" the

language!speech concept is obious. !he &ani"est a""init' o" the language according toSaussure and o" Eur#hei&s conception o" a collectie consciousness independent o" its

indiidual &ani"estations has been e&phasised er' earl' on. / direct in"luence o"

Eur#hei& on Saussure has een been postulated, it has been alleged that Saussure had"olloed er' closel' the debate beteen Eur#hei& and !arde and that his conception o"

the language ca&e "ro& Eur#hei& hile that o" speech as a #ind o" concession to

!ardes idea on the indiidual ele&ent. !his h'pothesis has lost so&e o" its topicalit'

because linguistics has chie"l' deeloped, in the Saussurean idea o" the language, thes'ste& o" alues aspect, hich led to acceptance o" the necessit' "or an i&&anent


8/22

anal'sis o" the linguistic institution, and this i&&anence is ini&ical to sociological

research.

arado%icall', it is not there"ore in the real& o" sociolog' that the best deelop&ent o"the notion o" language!speech ill be "ound* it is in philosoph', ith erleau3ont',

ho as probabl' one o" the "irst 0rench philosophers to beco&e interested in Saussure.He too# up again the Saussurean distinction as an opposition beteenspeaking speech (a

signi"'ing intention in its nascent state) andspoken speech(an acuired ealth o" thelanguage hich does recall Saussures treasure). He also broadened the notion b'

postulating that an'processpresupposes a system: thus there has been elaborated an

opposition beteen eent and structure hich has beco&e accepted and hose"ruit"ulness in histor' is ell #non.

Saussures notion has, o" course, also been ta#en oer and elaborated in the "ield o"

anthropolog'. !he re"erence to Saussure is too e%plicit in the hole or# o" laude 8Fi3

Strauss "or us to need to insist on it* e shall si&pl' re&ind the reader o" three "acts: i)

!hat the opposition beteen process and s'ste& (speech and language) is "ound again ina concrete guise in the transition "ro& the e%change o" o&en to the structures o"

#inship* ii) that "or 8Fi3Strauss this opposition has an episte&ological alue: the stud'o" linguistic pheno&ena is the do&ain o" &echanistic (in 8Fi3Strausss sense o" the

ord, na&el', as opposed to statistical) and structural interpretation, and the stud' o"

speech pheno&ena is the do&ain o" the theor' o" probabilities (&acrolinguistics)* iii)"inall', that the unconscious character o" the language in those ho dra on it "or their

speech, hich is e%plicitl' postulated b' Saussure, is again "ound in one o" the &ost

original and "ruit"ul contentions o" 8Fi3Strauss, hich states that it is not the contents

hich are unconscious (this is a criticis& o" Cungs archet'pes) but the "or&s, that is, thes'&bolical "unction.

!his idea is a#in to that o" 8acan, according to ho& the libido itsel" is articulated as a

s'ste& o" signi"ications, "ro& hich there "ollos, or ill hae to "ollo, a ne t'pe o"description o" the collectie "ield o" i&agination, not b' &eans o" its the&es, as has been

done until no, but b' its "or&s and its "unctions. ;r let us sa', &ore broadl' but &ore

clearl': b' its signi"iers &ore than b' its signi"ieds.

$t can be seen "ro& these brie" indications ho rich in e%tra3 or &eta3linguisticdeelop&ents the notion language!speech is. We shall there"ore postulate that there e%ists

a general categor' language!speech, hich e&braces all the s'ste&s o" signs* since there

are no better ones, e shall #eep the ter&s language and speech, een hen the' are

applied to co&&unications hose substance is not erbal.

$.5.5. The garment system We sa that the separation beteen the language and speech

represented the essential "eature o" linguistic anal'sis* it ould there"ore be "utile to

propose to appl' this separation straightaa' to s'ste&s o" ob+ects, i&ages or behaiourpatterns hich hae not 'et been studied "ro& a se&antic point o" ie. We can &erel',

in the case o" so&e o" these h'pothetical s'ste&s, "oresee that certain classes o" "acts ill

belong to the categor' o" the language and others to that o"speech,and &a#e it


9/22

i&&ediatel' clear that in the course o" its application to se&iolog', Saussures distinction

is li#el' to undergo &odi"ications hich it ill be precisel' our tas# to note.

8et us ta#e the gar&ent s'ste& "or instance* it is probabl' necessar' to subdiide it intothree di""erent s'ste&s, according to hich substance is used "or co&&unication.

$n clothes as ritten about, that is to sa' described in a "ashion &aga@ine b' &eans o"

articulated language, there is racticall' no speech: the gar&ent hich is described

neer corresponds to an indiidual handling o" the rules o" "ashion, it is a s'ste&atised seto" signs and rules: it is a language in its pure state. /ccording to the Saussurean sche&a,

a language ithout speech ould be i&possible* hat &a#es the "act acceptable here is,

on the one hand, that the language o" "ashion does not e&anate "ro& the ,spea#ing &assbut "ro& a group hich &a#es the decisions and deliberatel' elaborates the code, and on

the other hand that the abstraction inherent in an' language is here &aterialised as ritten

language: "ashion clothes (as ritten about) are the language at the leel o" esti&entar'

co&&unication and speech at the leel o" erbal co&&unication.

$n clothes asphotographed (i" e suppose, to si&pli"' &atters, that there is no

duplication b' erbal description), the language still issues "ro& the "ashion group, but it

is no longer gien in a holl' abstract "or&, "or a photographed gar&ent is ala's orn

b' an indiidual o&an. What is gien b' the "ashion photograph is a se&i3"or&alisedstate o" the gar&ent s'ste&: "or on the one hand, the language o" "ashion &ust here be

in"erred "ro& a pseudo3real gar&ent, and on the other, the earer o" the gar&ent (the

photographed &odel) is, so to spea#, a nor&atie indiidual, chosen "or her canonicgeneralit', and ho onseuentl' represents a speech hich is "i%ed and deoid o" all

co&binatie "reedo&.

0inall' in clothes as orn (or real clothes), as !rubet@#o' had suggested, e again "indthe classic distinction beteen language and speech. !he language, in the gar&ents'ste&, is &ade i) b' the oppositions o" pieces, parts o" gar&ent and details, the

ariation o" hich entails a change in &eaning (to ear a beret or a boler hat does not

hae the sa&e &eaning)* ii) b' the rules hich goern the association o" the piecesa&ong the&seles, either on the length o" the bod' or in depth. Speech, in the gar&ent

s'ste&, co&prises all the pheno&ena o" ano&ic "abrication ("e are still le"t in our

societ') or o" indiidual a' o" earing (si@e o" the gar&ent, degree o" cleanliness orear, personal uir#s, "ree association o" pieces). /s "or the dialectic hich unites here

costu&e (the language) and clothing (speech), it does not rese&ble that o" erbal

language* true, clothing ala's dras on costu&e (e%cept in the case o" eccentricit',

hich, b' the a', also has its signs), but costu&e, at least toda', precedes clothing,since it co&es "ro& the read'3&ade industr', that is, "ro& a &inorit' group (although

&ore anon'&ous than that o" Haute outure).

$.5.7. The food system 8et us no ta#e another signi"'ing s'ste&: "ood. We shall "indthere ithout di""icult' Saussures distinction. !he ali&entar' language is &ade o" i)

rules o" e%clusion (ali&entar' taboos)* ii) signi"'ing oppositions o" units, the t'pe o"

hich re&ains to be deter&ined ("or instance the type sa)oury!seet#$ iii) rules o"


10/22

association, either si&ultaneous (at the leel o" a dish) or successie (at the leel o" a

&enu)* i) rituals o" use hich "unction, perhaps, as a #ind o" ali&entar' rhetoric. /s "or

ali&entar' speech, hich is er' rich, it co&prises all the personal (or "a&il') ariationso" preparation and association (one &ight consider coo#er' ithin one "a&il', hich is

sub+ect to a nu&ber o" habits, as an idiolect). !he menu, "or instance, illustrates er' ell

this relationship beteen the language and speech: an' &enu is concocted ith re"erenceto a structure (hich is both national 3 or regional 3 and social)* but this structure is "illed

di""erentl' according to the da's and the users, +ust as a linguistic "or& is "illed b' the

"ree ariations and co&binations hich a spea#er needs "or a particular &essage. !herelationship beteen the language and speech ould here be "airl' si&ilar to that hich

is "ound in erbal language: broadl', it is usage, that is to sa', a sort o" sedi&entation o"

&an' peoples speech, hich &a#es up the ali&entar' language* hoeer, pheno&ena o"

indiidual innoation can acuire an institutional alue ithin it. What is &issing, in an'case, contrar' to hat happened in the gar&ent s'ste&, is the action o" a deciding group:

the ali&entar' language is eoled onl' "ro& a broadl' collectie usage, or "ro& a purel'

indiidual speech.

$.5.4. The car system, the furniture system !o bring to a close, so&ehat arbitraril', this

uestion o" the prospects opened up b' the language!speech distinction, e shall &ention

a "e &ore suggestions concerning to s'ste&s o" ob+ects, er' di""erent, it is true, but

hich hae in co&&on a dependence in each case on a deciding and &anu"acturinggroup: cars and "urniture.

$n the car s'ste&, the language is &ade up b' a hole set o" "or&s and details, the

structure o" hich is established di""erentiall' b' co&paring the protot'pes to each other

(independentl' o" the nu&ber o" their copies)* the scope o" speech is er' narrobecause, "or a gien status o" bu'er, "reedo& in choosing a &odel is er' restricted: it can

inole onl' to or three &odels, and ithin each &odel, colour and "ittings. But perhapse should here e%change the notion o" cars as o&(ects "or that o" cars as sociological"acts* e ould then "ind in the dri)ingo" cars the ariations in usage o" the ob+ect hich

usuall' &a#e up the plane o" speech. 0or the user cannot in this instance hae a direct

action on the &odel and co&bine its units* his "reedo& o" interpretation is "ound in theusage deeloped in ti&e and ithin hich the "or&s issuing "ro& the language &ust, in

order to beco&e actual, be rela'ed b' certain practices.

0inall', the last s'ste& about hich e should li#e to sa' a ord, that o" "urniture, is also

a se&antic ob+ect: the language is "or&ed both b' the oppositions o" "unctionall'identical pieces (to t'pes o" ardrobe, to t'pes o" bed, etc), each o" hich, according

to its st'le, re"ers to a di""erent &eaning, and b' the rules o" association o" the di""erent

units at the leel o" a roo& ("urnishing)* the speech is here "or&ed either b' theinsigni"icant ariations hich the user can introduce into one unit (b' tin#ering ith one

ele&ent, "or instance), or b' "reedo& in associating pieces o" "urniture together.

$.5.


11/22

the concerted action o" a collection o" i&ages, sounds and ritten ords. $t ill,

there"ore, be pre&ature to decide, in their case, hich "acts belong to the language and

hich belong to speech, on the one hand as long as one has not discoered hether thelanguage o" each o" these co&ple% s'ste&s is original or onl' co&pounded o" the

subsidiar' languages hich hae their, places in the&, and on the other hand as long as

these subsidiar' languages hae not been anal'sed (e #no the linguistic language, butnot that o" i&ages or that o" &usic).

/s "or the ress, hich can be reasonabl' considered as an autono&ous signi"'ing

s'ste&, een i" e con"ine ourseles to its ritten ele&ents onl', e are still al&ost

entirel' ignorant o" a linguistic pheno&enon hich see&s to pla' an essential part in it:connotation, that is, the deelop&ent o" a s'ste& o" second3order &eanings, hich are so

to spea# parasitic on the language proper . !his second order s'ste& is also a language,

ithin hich there deelop speech3pheno&ena, idiolects and duple% structures. $n thecase o" such co&ple% or connoted s'ste&s (both characteristics are not &utuall'

e%clusie), it is there"ore no longer possible to predeter&ine, een in global and

h'pothetical "ashion, hat belongs to the language and hat belongs to speech.

$.5.6.ro&lems "I# - the origin of the )arious signifyings systems !he se&iologicale%tension o" the language!speech notion brings ith it so&e proble&s, hich o" course

coincide ith the points here the linguistic &odel can no longer be "olloed and &ust

be altered. !he "irst proble& concerns the origin o" the arious s'ste&s, and thus toucheson the er' dialectics o" language and speech. $n the linguistic &odel, nothing enters the

language ithout haing been tried in speech, but conersel' no speech is possible (that

is, "ul"ils its "unction o" co&&unication) i" it is not dran "ro& the treasure o" the

language. !his process is still, at least partiall', "ound in a s'ste& li#e that o" "ood,although indiidual innoations brought into it can beco&e language pheno&ena. But in

&ost other se&iological s'ste&s, the language is elaborated not b' the spea#ing &assbut b' a deciding group. $n this sense, it can be held that in &ost se&iological languages,the sign is reall' and trul' arbitrar' since it is "ounded in arti"icial "ashion b' a

unilateral decision* these in "act are "abricated languages, logo3techniues. !he user

"ollos these languages, dras &essages (or speech) "ro& the& but has no part in theirelaboration. !he deciding group hich is at the origin o" the s'ste& (and o" its changes)

can be &ore or less narro* it can be a highl' uali"ied technocrac' ("ashion, &otor

industr')* it can also be a &ore di""use and anon'&ous group (the production o"standardised "urniture, the &iddle reaches o" read'3to3ear). $", hoeer, this arti"icial

character does not alter the institutional nature o" the co&&unication and preseres so&e

a&ount o" dialectical pla' beteen the s'ste& and usage, it is because, in the "irst place,

although i&posed on the users, the signi"'ing contract is no less obsered b' the great&a+orit' o" the& (otherise the user is marked ith a certain asociabilit': he can no

longer co&&unicate an'thing e%cept his eccentricit')* and because, &oreoer, languages

elaborated as the outco&e o" a decision are not entirel' "ree (arbitrar'). !he' are sub+ectto the deter&ination o" the co&&unit', at least through the "olloing agencies: i) hen

ne needs are born, "olloing the deelop&ent o" societies (the &oe to se&i32uropean

clothing in conte&porar' /"rican countries, the birth o" ne patterns o" uic# "eeding inindustrial and urban societies)* ii) hen econo&ic reuire&ents bring about the


12/22

disappearance or pro&otion o" certain &aterials (arti"icial te%tiles)* iii) hen ideolog'

li&its the inention o" "or&s, sub+ects it to taboos and reduces, so to spea#, the &argins

o" the nor&al. $n a ider sense, e can sa' that the elaborations o" deciding groups,na&el' the logo3techniues, are the&seles onl' the ter&s o" an eer3idening "unction,

hich is the collectie "ield o" i&agination o" the epoch: thus indiidual innoation is

transcended b' a sociological deter&ination ("ro& restricted groups), but thesesociological deter&inations re"er in turn to a "inal &eaning, hich is anthropological.

$.5.. ro&lems "II# - the proportion &eteen +language+ and +speech+ in the )arious

systems Thesecond proble& presented b' the se&iological e%tension o" the

language!speech notion is centred on the proportion, in the &atter o" olu&e, hich canbe established beteen the language and the corresponding speech in an' s'ste&. $n

erbal language there is a er' great disproportion beteen the language, hich is a "inite

set o" rules, and speech, hich co&es under the heading o" these rules and is practicall'unli&ited in its ariet'. $t can be presu&ed that the "ood s'ste& still o""ers an i&portant

di""erence in the olu&e o" each, since ithin the culinar' "or&s, the &odalities and

co&binations in interpretation are nu&erous. But e hae seen that in the car or the"urniture s'ste& the scope "or co&binatie ariations and "ree associations is s&all: there

is er' little &argin 3 at least o" the sort hich is ac#noledged b' the institution itsel" 3

beteen the &odel and its e%ecution: these are s'ste&s in hich speech is poor. $n a

particular s'ste&, that o" ritten "ashion, speech is een al&ost non3e%istent, so that eare dealing here, parado%icall', ith a language ithout speech (hich is possible, as e

hae seen, onl' because this language is upheld b' linguistic speech).

!he "act re&ains that i" it is true that there are languages ithout speech or ith a er'

restricted speech, e shall hae to reise the Saussurean theor' hich states that alanguage is nothing but a s'ste& o" di""erences (in hich case, being entirel' negatie, it

cannot be grasped outside speech). and co&plete the couple language!speech ith a third,presigni"'ing ele&ent, a &atter or substance proiding the (necessar') support o"signi"ication. $n a phrase li#e a long or short dress, the dress is onl' the support o" a

ariant "long!short# hich does "ull' belong to the gar&ent language 3 a distinction hich

is un#non in ordinar' language, in hich, since the sound is considered as immediatelysigni"icant, it cannot be deco&posed into an inert and a se&antic ele&ent. !his ould

lead us to recognise in (non3linguistic) se&iological s'ste&s three (and not to) planes:

that o" the &atter, that o" the language and that o" the usage. !his o" course allos us toaccount "or s'ste&s ithout e%ecution, since the "irst ele&ent ensures that there is a

&aterialit' o" the language* and such a &odi"ication is all the &ore plausible since it can

be e%plained geneticall': i", in such s'ste&s, the language needs a &atter (and no

longer a speech), it is because unli#e that o" hu&an language their origin is in generalutilitarian, and not signi"'ing.

II. SIGNI"IER AND SIGNI"IED

II.1. THE SIGN


13/22

The classification of signs !he signi"ied and the signi"ier, in Saussurean ter&inolog', are

the co&ponents o" thesign.-o this ter&,sign, hich is "ound in er' di""erent

ocabularies ("ro& that o" theolog' to that o" &edicine), and hose histor' is er' rich(running "ro& the ?ospels to c'bernetics), is "or these er' reasons er' a&biguous* so

be"ore e co&e bac# to the Saussurean acceptance o" the ord, e &ust sa' a ord

about the notional "ield in hich it occupies a place, albeit i&precise, as ill be seen. 0or,according to the arbitrar' choice o" arious authors, the sign is placed in a series o" ter&s

hich hae a""inities and dissi&ilarities ith it:signal,inde*, icon, sym&ol, allegory, are

the chie" rials o"sign. 8et us "irst state the ele&ent hich is co&&on to all these ter&s:the' all necessaril' re"er us to a relation beteen to relata. !his "eature cannot

there"ore be used to distinguish an' o" the ter&s in the series* to "ind a ariation in

&eaning, e shall hae to resort to other "eatures, hich ill be e%pressed here in the

"or& o" an alternatie "presencesa&sence# i) the relation i&plies, or does not i&pl', the&ental representation o" one o" the relata$ ii) the relation i&plies, or does not i&pl', an

analog' beteen the relata$ iii) the lin# beteen the to relata(the sti&ulus and its

response) is i&&ediate or is not* i) the relata e%actl' coincide or, on the contrar', one

oerruns the other* ) the relation i&plies, or does not i&pl', an e%istential connectionith the user. Whether these "eatures are positie or negatie (&ar#ed or un&ar#ed),

each ter& in the "ield is di""erentiated "ro& its neighbours. $t &ust be added that thedistribution o" the "ield aries "ro& one author to another, a "act hich produces

ter&inological contradictions* these ill be easil' seen at a glance "ro& a table o" the

incidence o" "eatures and ter&s in "our di""erent authors: Hegel, eirce, Cung and Wallon(the re"erence to so&e "eatures, hether &ar#ed or un&ar#ed, &a' be absent in so&e

authors). We see that the ter&inological contradiction bears essentiall' on inde% ("or

eirce, the inde% is e%istential, "or Wallon, it is not) and onsym&ol ("or Hegel and Wallon

there is a relation o" analog' 3 or o" ,&otiation 3 beteen the to relata of the s'&bol,but not "or eirce* &oreoer, "or eirce, the s'&bol is not e%istential, hereas it is "or

Cung). But e see also that these contradictions 3 hich in this table are read erticall' 3

are er' ell e%plained, or rather, that the' co&pensate each other through trans"ers o"&eaning "ro& ter& to ter& in the sa&e author. !hese trans"ers can here be read

hori@ontall': "or instance, the s'&bol is analogical in Hegel as opposed to the sign hich

is not* and i" it is not in eirce, it is because the icon can absorb that "eature. /ll this&eans, to su& up and tal# in se&iological ter&s (this being the point o" this brie" anal'sis

hich re"lects, li#e a &irror, the sub+ect and &ethods o" our stud'), that the ords in the

"ield derie their &eaning onl' "ro& their opposition to one another (usuall' in pairs),

and that i" these oppositions are presered, the &eaning is una&biguous. $n particular,signal and inde*, sym&ol and sign, are the ter&s o" to di""erent "unctions, hich can

the&seles be opposed3as a hole, as the' do in Wallon, hose ter&inolog' is the

clearest and the &ost co&plete "icon and allegory are con"ined to the ocabular' o"eirce and Cung). We shall there"ore sa', ith Wallon, that thesignal and the inde% "or&

a group o" relatadeoid o" &ental representation, hereas in the opposite group, that o"

sym&ol and sign, this representation e%ists* "urther&ore, thesignal is i&&ediate ande%istential, hereas the inde% is not (it is onl' a trace)* "inall', that in thesym&ol the

representation is analogical and inadeuate (hristianit' outruns the cross), hereas in

thesign the relation is un&otiated and e%act (there is no analog' beteen the ord o%

and the i&age o" an o%, hich is per"ectl' coered b' its relatum#.


14/22

$$.1.5. The linguistic sign $n linguistics, the notion o" sign does not gie rise to an'

co&petition beteen neighbouring ter&s. When he sought to designate the signi"'ing

relationship, Saussure i&&ediatel' eli&inated s'&bol (because the ter& i&plied the ideao" &otiation) in "aour o"sign hich he de"ined as the union o" a signi"ier and a

signi"ied (in the "ashion o" the recto and erso o" a sheet o" paper), or else o" an acoustic

i&age and a concept. Gntil he "ound the ords signifier and signified, hoeer, signre&ained a&biguous, "or it tended to beco&e identi"ied ith the signi"ier onl', hich

Saussure anted at all costs to aoid* a"ter haing hesitated beteens/me andsame,

form and idea, image and concept, Saussure settled uponsignifier and signified, theunion o" hich "or&s the sign. !his is a para&ount proposition, hich one &ust ala's

bear in &ind, "or there is a tendenc' to interpretsign as signi"ier, hereas this is a to3

sided Canus3li#e entit'. !he (i&portant) conseuence is that, "or Saussure, H+el&sle and

0rei at least, since the signi"ieds are signs a&ong others, se&antics &ust be a part o"structural linguistics, hereas "or the /&erican &echanists the signi"ieds are substances

hich &ust be e%pelled "ro& linguistics and le"t to ps'cholog'. Since Saussure, the

theor' o" the linguistic sign has been enriched b' the dou&learticulationprinciple, the

i&portance o" hich has been shon b' artinet, to the e%tent that he &ade it thecriterion hich de"ines language. 0or a&ong linguistic signs, e &ust distinguish

beteen thesignificant units, each one o" hich is endoed ith one &eaning (theords, or to be e%act, the &one&es) and hich "or& the "irst articulation, and the

distincti)e units, hich are part o" the "or& but do not hae a direct &eaning (the

sounds, or rather the phone&es), and hich constitute the second articulation. $t is thisdouble articulation hich accounts "or the econo&' o" hu&an language* "or it is a

poer"ul gearing3don hich allos, "or instance, /&erican Spanish to produce, ith

onl' 5$ distinctie units, 1, signi"icant units.

$$.1.7. 0orm and su&stance.- !he sign is there"ore a co&pound o" a signi"ier and a

signi"ied. !he plane o" the signi"iers constitutes theplane of e*pression and that o" thesigni"ieds theplane of content. Within each o" these to planes, H+el&sle has

introduced a distinction hich &a' be i&portant "or the stud' o" the se&iological (and no

longer onl' linguistic) sign. /ccording to hi&, each plane co&prises to strataformand su&stance$ e &ust insist on the ne de"inition o" these to ter&s, "or each o" the&

has a eight' le%ical past. !heform is hat can be described e%haustiel', si&pl' and

coherentl' (episte&ological criteria) b' linguistics ithout resorting to an' e%tra3linguistic pre&ise* thesu&stance is the hole set o" aspects o" linguistic pheno&ena

hich cannot be described ithout resorting to e%tra3linguistic pre&ises. Since both

strata e%ist on the plane o" e%pression and the plane o" content, e there"ore hae: i) asubstance o" e%pression: "or instance the phonic, articulator', non3"unctional substance

hich is the "ield o" phonetics, not phonolog'* ii) a "or& o" e%pression, &ade o" the

paradig&atic and s'ntactic rules (let us note that the sa&e "or& can hae to di""erentsubstances, one phonic, the other graphic)* iii) a substance o" content: this includes, "or

instance, the e&otional, ideological, or si&pl' notional aspects o" the signi"ied, its

positie &eaning* i) a "or& o" content: it is the "or&al organisation o" the signi"ied

a&ong the&seles through the absence or presence o" a se&antic &ar#. !his last notionis di""icult to grasp, because o" the i&possibilit' o" separating the signi"iers "ro& the

signi"ieds in hu&an language* but "or this er' reason the subdiisionform!su&stance can


15/22

be &ade &ore use"ul and easier to handle in se&iolog', in the "olloing cases: i) hen

e deal ith a s'ste& in hich the signi"ieds are substanti"ied in a substance other than

that o" their on s'ste& (this is, as e hae seen, the case ith "ashion as it is rittenabout)* ii) hen a s'ste& o" ob+ects includes a substance hich is not i&&ediatel' and

"unctionall' signi"icant, but can be, at a certain leel, si&pl' utilitarian: the "unction o" a

dish can be to signi"' a situation and also to sere as "ood.

$$.1.4. The semiological sign !his perhaps allos us to "oresee the nature o" these&iological sign in relation to the linguistic sign. !he se&iological sign is also, li#e its

&odel, co&pounded o" a signi"ier and a signi"ied (the colour o" a light, "or instance, is an

order to &oe on, in the Higha' ode), but it di""ers "ro& it at the leel o" itssubstances. an' se&iological s'ste&s (ob+ects, gestures, pictorial i&ages) hae a

substance o" e%pression hose essence is not to signi"'* o"ten, the' are ob+ects o"

eer'da' use, used b' societ' in a deriatie a', to signi"' so&ething: clothes are used"or protection and "ood "or nourish&ent een i" the' are also used as signs. We propose

to call these se&iological signs, hose origin is utilitarian and "unctional,sign-functions.

!he sign3"unction bears itness to a double &oe&ent, hich &ust be ta#en apart. $n a"irst stage (this anal'sis is purel' operatie and does not i&pl' real te&poralit') the

"unction beco&es peraded ith &eaning. !his se&antisation is ineitable: as soon as

there is asociety, e)ery usage is con)erted into a sign of itself$the use o" a raincoat is to

gie protection "ro& the rain, but this use cannot be dissociated "ro& the er' signs o" anat&ospheric situation. Since our societ' produces onl' standardised, nor&alised ob+ects,

these ob+ects are unaoidabl' realisations o" a &odel, the speech o" a language, the

substances o" a signi"icant "or&. !o rediscoer a non3signi"'ing ob+ect, one ould haeto i&agine a utensil absolutel' i&proised and ith no si&ilarit' to an e%isting &odel

(8Fi3Strauss has shon to hat e%tent tin#ering about is itsel" the search "or a &eaning):

a h'pothesis hich is irtuall' i&possible to eri"' in an' societ'. !his uniersal

se&antisation o" the usages is crucial: it e%presses the "act that there is no realit' e%cepthen it is intelligible, and should eentuall' lead to the &erging o" sociolog' ith

sociological But once the sign is constituted, societ' can er' ell re"unctionalise it, and

spea# about it as i" it ere an ob+ect &ade "or use: a "ur3coat ill be described as i" itsered onl' to protect "ro& the cold. !his recurrent "unctionalisation, hich needs, in

order to e%ist, a second3order language, is b' no &eans the sa&e as the "irst (and indeed

purel' ideal) "unctionalisation: "or the "unction hich is re3presented does in "actcorrespond to a second (disguised) se&antic institutionalisation, hich is o" the order o"

connotation. !he sign3"unction there"ore has (probabl') an anthropological alue, since it

is the er' unit here the relations o" the technical and the signi"icant are oentogether.

II.. THE SIGNI"IED

$$.5.1. 1ature of the signified: $n linguistics, the nature o" the signi"ied has gien rise to

discussions hich hae centred chie"l' on its degree o" realit'* all agree, hoeer, on

e&phasising the "act that the signi"ied is not a thing but a &ental representation o" thething. We hae seen that in the de"inition o" the sign b' Wallon, this representatie

character as a releant "eature o" the sign and the s'&bol (as opposed to the inde% and


16/22

the signal). Saussure hi&sel" has clearl' &ar#ed the &ental nature o" the signi"ied b'

calling it a concept the signi"ied o" the ord o% is not the ani&al o%, but its &ental

i&age (this ill proe i&portant in the subseuent discussion on the nature o" the sign).!hese discussions, hoeer, still bear the sta&p o" ps'chologis&, so the anal'sis o" the

Stoics ill perhaps be thought pre"erable. !he' care"ull' distinguished thephantasia

logiki(the &ental representation), the tinganon(the real thing) and the lekton(theutterable). !he signi"ied is neither thephantasianor the tinganonbut rather the lekton*

being neither an act o" consciousness, nor a real thing, it can be de"ined onl' ithin the

signi"'ing process, in a uasi3tautological a': it is this so&ething hich is &eant b'the person ho uses the sign. $n this a' e are bac# again to a purel' "unctional

de"inition: the signi"ied is one o" the to relata o" the sign* the onl' di""erence hich

opposes it to the signi"ied is that the latter is a &ediator. !he situation could not be

essentiall' di""erent in se&iolog', here ob+ects, i&ages, gestures, etc., inas&uch as the'are signi"icant, re"er bac# to so&ething hich can be e%pressed onl' through the&,

e%cept that the se&iological signi"ied can be ta#en up b' the linguistic signs. ;ne can

sa', "or instance, that a certain seater &eans long autumn alks in the oods$ in this

case, the signi"ied is &ediated not onl' b' its esti&entar' signi"ier (the seater), butalso b' a "rag&ent o" speech (hich greatl' helps in handling it). We could gie the

na&e o" isology to the pheno&enon hereb' language ields its signi"iers and signi"iedsso that it is i&possible to dissociate and di""erentiate the&, in order to set aside the case

o" the non3isologic s'ste&s (hich are ineitabl' co&ple%), in hich the signi"ied can be

si&pl'(u*taposed ith its signi"ier.

$$.5.5. Classification of the linguistic signifieds Ho can e classi"' the signi"ieds> We#no that in se&iolog' this operation is "unda&ental, since it a&ounts to isolating the

form "ro& the content. /s "ar as linguistic signi"iers are concerned, to sorts o"

classi"ication can be conceied. !he "irst is e%ternal, and &a#es use o" the positie (and

not purel' di""erential) content o" concepts: this is the case in the &ethodical groupings o"Hallig and Wartburg, and in the &ore conincing notional "ields o" !rier and

le%icological "ields o" atorF. But "ro& a structural point o" ie, this classi"ication

(especiall' those o" Hallig and Wartburg) hae the de"ect o" resting still too &uch on the(ideological)su&stance o" the signi"ieds, and not on theirform. !o succeed in

establishing a reall' "or&al classi"ication, one ould hae to succeed in reconstituting

oppositions o" signi"ieds, and in isolating, ithin each one o" these, a releantco&&utatie "eature: this &ethod has been adocated b' H+el&sle, SIrensen, rieto and

?rei&as. H+el&sle, "or instance, deco&poses a &one&e li#e &are into to s&aller

signi"icant units: Horse J "e&ale, and these units can be co&&utated and there"ore usedto reconstitute ne &one&es (pig, J "e&ale K so, horse J &ale K stallion)* rieto

sees in ir to co&&utable "eatures ho&o J &asculus* SIrensen reduces the le%icon

o" #inship to a co&bination o" pri&ities ("ather K &ale parent, parent K "irstascendant). -one o" these anal'ses has 'et been deeloped . 0inall', e &ust re&ind the

reader that according to so&e linguists, the signi"ieds are not a part o" linguistics, hich

is concerned onl' ith signi"iers, and that se&antic classi"ication lies outside the "ield o"

linguistics.


17/22

$$.5.7. The semiological signifieds Structural linguistics, hoeer adanced, has not 'et

elaborated a se&antics, that is to sa' a classi"ication o" theformso" the erbal signi"ied.

;ne &a' there"ore easil' i&agine that it is at present i&possible to put "orard aclassi"ication o" se&iological signi"ieds, unless e choose to "all bac# on to #non

notional "ields. We shall enture three obserations onl'.

!he "irst concerns the &ode o" actualisation o" se&iological signi"ieds. !hese can occur

either isologicall' or not* in the latter case, the' are ta#en up, through articulatedlanguage, either b' a ord "eek-end# or b' a group o" ords "long alks inthe

country#$ the' are thereb' easier to handle, since the anal'st is not "orced to i&pose on

the& his on &etalanguage, but also &ore dangerous, since the' ceaselessl' re"er bac#to the se&antic classi"ication o" the language itsel" (hich is itsel" un#non), and not to a

classi"ication haing its bases in the s'ste& under obseration. !he signi"ieds o" the

"ashion gar&ent, een i" the' are &ediated b' the speech o" the &aga@ine, are notnecessaril' distributed li#e the signi"ieds o" the language, since the' do not ala's hae

the sa&e length (here a ord, there a sentence). $n the "irst case, that o" the isologic

s'ste&s, the signi"ied has no &aterialisation other than its t'pical signi"ier* one cannotthere"ore handle it e%cept b' i&posing on it a &etalanguage. ;ne can "or instance as#

so&e sub+ects about the &eaning the' attribute to a piece o" &usic b' sub&itting to the&

a list o" erbalised signi"ieds "anguished, stormy, som&re, tormented, etc.)* hereas in

"act all these erbal signs "or a single &usical signi"ied, hich ought to be designated b'one single cipher, hich ould i&pl' no erbal dissection and no &etaphorical s&all

change. !hese &etalanguages, issuing "ro& the anal'st in the "or&er case, and the s'ste&

itsel" in the latter, are probabl' ineitable, and this is hat still &a#es the anal'sis o" thesigni"ieds, or ideological anal'sis, proble&atical* its place ithin the se&iological pro+ect

ill at least hae to be de"ined in theor'.

;ur second re&ar# concerns the e%tension o" the se&iological signi"ieds. !he hole o"the signi"ieds o" a s'ste& (once "or&alised) constitutes a great "unction* no it isprobable that "ro& one s'ste& to the other, the great se&iological "unctions not onl'

co&&unicate, but also partl' oerlap* the "or& o" the signi"ied in the gar&ent s'ste& is

probabl' partl' the sa&e as that o" the signi"ied in the "ood s'ste&, being, as the' are,both articulated on the large3scale opposition o" or# and "estiit', actiit' and leisure.

;ne &ust there"ore "oresee a total ideological description, co&&on to all the s'ste&s o" a

gien s'nchron'.

0inall' 3 and this ill be our third re&ar# 3 e &a' consider that to each s'ste& o"&agni"iers (le%icons) there corresponds, on the plane o" the signi"ieds, a corpus o"

practices and techniues* these collections o" signi"ieds i&pl' on the part o" s'ste&

consu&ers (o" readers, that is to sa'), di""erent degrees o" #noledge (according todi""erences in their culture), hich e%plains ho the sa&e le%ie (or large unit o"

reading) can be deciphered di""erentl' according to the indiiduals concerned, ithout

ceasing to belong to a gien language. Seeral le%icons3and conseuentl' seeral bodies

o" signi"ieds 3 can coe%ist ithin the sa&e indiidual, deter&ining in each one &ore orless deep readings.


18/22

II.#. THE SIGNI"IER

$$.7.1. 1ature of the signaller. !he nature o" the signi"ier suggests roughl' the sa&e

re&ar#s as that o" the signi"ied: it is purel' a relatum, hose de"inition cannot beseparated "ro& that o" the signi"ied. !he onl' di""erence is that the &agni"ier is a

&ediator: so&e &atter is necessar' to it. But on the one hand it is not su""icient to it, andon the other, in se&iolog', the signi"ier can, too, be rela'ed b' a certain &atter: that o"

ords. !his &aterialit' o" the signi"ier &a#es it once &ore necessar' to distinguishclearl' matter "ro&su&stance a substance can be i&&aterial (in the case o" the

substance o" the content)* there"ore, all one can sa' is that the substance o" the signi"ier is

ala's &aterial (sounds, ob+ects, i&ages). $n se&iolog', here e shall hae to dealith &i%ed s'ste&s in hich di""erent #inds o" &atter are inoled (sound and i&age,

ob+ect and riting, etc.), it &a' be appropriate to collect together all the signs, inasmuch

asthey are home &y one and the same matter, under the concept o" the typical sign theerbal sign, the graphic sign, the iconic sign, the gestural sign are all t'pical signs.

$$.7.5. Classification of the signifiers !he clari"ication o" the signi"iers is nothing but thestructuralisation proper o" the s'ste&. What has to be done is to cut up the endless

&essage constituted b' the hole o" the &essages e&itted at the leel o" the studiedcorpus, into &ini&al signi"icant units b' &eans o" the co&&utation test, then to group

these units into paradig&atic classes, and "inall' to classi"' the s'ntag&atic relations

hich lin# these units. !hese operations constitute an i&portant part o" the se&iologicalunderta#ing hich ill be dealt ith in chapter 111* e anticipate the point in

&entioning it here.

II.$. THE SIGNI"ICATION

$$.4.1. The significant correlation !he sign is a (to3"aced) slice o" sonorit', isualit',etc. !hesignification can be conceied as a process* it is the act hich binds the signi"ierand the signi"ied, an act hose product is the sign. !his distinction has, o" course, onl' a

classi"'ing (and not pheno&enological) alue: "irstl', because the union o" signi"ier and

signi"ied, as e shall see, does not e%haust the se&antic act, "or the sign deries its aluealso "ro& its surroundings* secondl', because, probabl', the &ind does not proceed, in

the se&antic process, b' con+unction but b' caring out. /nd indeed the signi"ication

"semiosis#does not unite unilateral entities, it does not con+oin to ter&s, "or the er'good reason that signi"ier and signi"ied are both at once ter& and relation. !his a&biguit'

&a#es an' graphic representation o" the signi"ication so&ehat clu&s', 'et this

operation is necessar' "or an' se&iological discourse. ;n this point, let us &ention the

"olloing atte&pts:

1) SrDSd: $n Saussure, the sign appears, in his de&onstration, as the ertical e%tension o" a

situation in depth in the language, the signi"ied is, as it ere, &ehind the signi"ier, and

can be reached onl' through it, although, on the one hand, these e%cessiel' spatial&etaphors &iss the dialectical nature o" the signi"ication, and on the other hand the

closed character o" the sign is acceptable onl' "or the "ran#l' discontinuous s'ste&s,

such as that o" the language.


19/22

5) 2R: H+el&sle has chosen in pre"erence a purel' graphic representation: there is a

relation (R) beteen the plane o" e%pression (2) and the plane o" content (). !his

"or&ula enables us to account econo&icall' and ithout &etaphorical "alsi"ication, "orthe &etalanguages or deriatie s'ste&s 2 R (2R).

7)S

DS: 8acan, "olloed b' 8aplanche and 8eclaire, uses a spatialised riting hich,hoeer, di""ers "ro& Saussures representation on to points: i) the signi"ier (S) is

global, &ade up o" a &ulti3leelled chain (&etaphorical chain): signi"ier and signi"iedhae onl' a "loating relationship and coincide onl' at certain anchorage points* ii) the line

beteen the signi"ier (S) and the signi"ied (s) has its on alue (hich o" course it had

not in Saussure): it represents the repression o" the signi"ied.

4) Sr K Sd: 0inall', in non3isologic s'ste&s (that is, those in hich the signi"ieds are

&aterialised through another s'ste&), it is o" course legiti&ate to e%tend the relation in

the "or& o" an euialence but not o" an identit'.

$$.4.5. The ar&itrary and the moti)ated in linguisticsWe hae seen that all that could besaid about the signi"ier is that it as a (&aterial) &ediator o" the signi"ied. What is the

nature o" this &ediation> $n linguistics, this proble& has proo#ed so&e discussion,

chie"l' about ter&inolog', "or all is "airl' clear about the &ain issues (this ill perhaps

not be the case ith se&iolog'). Starting "ro& the "act that in hu&an language the choiceo" sounds is not i&posed on us b' the &eaning itsel" (the o% does not deter&ine the

sound o%, since in an' case the sound is di""erent in other languages), Saussure had

spo#en o" an ar&itrary relation beteen signi"ier and signi"ied. Beneniste hasuestioned the aptness o" this ord: hat is arbitrar' is the relation beteen the signi"ier

and the thing hich is signi"ied (o" the sound o% and the ani&al the o%). But, as e hae

seen, een "or Saussure, the sign is not the thing, but the &ental representation o" the

thing (concept)* the association o" sound and representation is the outco&e o" a collectietraining ("or instance the learning o" the 0rench tongue)* this association 3 hich is the

signi"ication 3 is b' no &eans arbitrar' ("or no 0rench person is "ree to &odi"' it), indeedit is, on the contrar', necessar'. $t as there"ore suggested to sa' that in linguistics the

signi"ication is unmoti)ated. !his lac# o" &otiation, is, b' the a', onl' partial

(Saussure spea#s o" a relatie analog'): "ro& signi"ied to signi"ier, there is a certain

&otiation in the (restricted) case o" ono&atopoeia, as e shall see shortl', and alsoeer' ti&e a series o" signs is created b' the tongue through the i&itation o" a certain

protot'pe o" co&position or deriation: this is the case ith so3called proportional signs:

pommier, poirer, a&ricotier, etc., once the lac# o" &otiation in their roots and theirsu""i% is established, sho an analog' in their co&position. We shall there"ore sa' in

general ter&s that in the language the lin# beteen signi"ier and signi"ied is contractual

in its principle, but that this contract is collectie, inscribed in a long te&poralit'(Saussure sa's that a language is ala's a legac'), and that conseuentl' it is, as it ere,

naturalised$ in the sa&e a', 8ei3Strauss speci"ied that the linguistic sign is arbitrar' a

prioribut non3arbitrar' a posteriori. !his discussion leads us to #eep to di""erent ter&s,

hich ill be use"ul during the se&iological e%tension. We shall sa' that a s'ste& isarbitrar' hen its signs are "ounded not b' conention, but b' unilateral decision: the

sign is not arbitrar' in the language but it is in "ashion* and e shall sa' that a sign is


20/22

moti)ated hen the relation beteen its signi"ied and its signi"ier is analogical (Bu'ssens

has put "orard, as suitable ter&s, intrinsic semes "or &otiated signs, and e*trinsic

semes "or un&otiated ones). $t ill there"ore be possible to hae s'ste&s hich arearbitrar' and &otiated, and others hich are non3arbitrar' and un&otiated.

$$.4.7. The ar&itrary and the moti)ated in semiology$n linguistics, &otiation is li&itedto the partial plane o" deriation or co&position* in se&iolog', on the contrar', it ill put

to us &ore general proble&s. ;n the one hand, it is possible that outside languages'ste&s &a' be "ound, in hich &otiation pla's a great part. We shall then hae to

establish in hat a' analog' is co&patible ith the discontinuous character hich up to

no has see&ed necessar' to signi"ication* and a"terards ho paradig&atic series (thatis, in hich the ter&s are "e and discrete) can be established hen the signi"iers are

analogs this ill probabl' be the case o" i&ages, the se&iolog' o" hich is, "or these

reasons, "ar "ro& being established. ;n the other hand, it is highl' probable that ase&iological inentor' ill reeal the e%istence o" i&pure s'ste&s, co&prising either

er' loose &otiations, or &otiations peraded, so to spea#, ith secondar' non3

&otiations, as i", o"ten, the sign lent itsel" to a #ind o" con"lict beteen the &otiatedand the un&otiated. !his is alread' to so&e e%tent the case o" the &ost &otiated @one

o" language, that o" ono&atopoeia. artinet has pointed out, that the ono&atopoeic

&otiation as acco&panied b' a loss o" the double articulation (ouch, hich depends

onl' on the second articulation, replaces the doubl' articulated s'ntag& +it hurts+#$ 'et theono&atopoeia hich e%presses pain is not e%actl' the sa&e in 0rench "aie# and in Eanish

(au), "or instance. !his is because in "act &otiation here sub&its, as it ere, to

phonological &odels hich o" course ar ith di""erent languages: there is ani&pregnation o" the analogical b' the digital. ;utside language, proble&atic s'ste&s, li#e

the language o" the bees, sho the sa&e a&biguit': the hone'3gathering dances hae a

aguel' analogical alue* that at the entrance o" the hie is "ran#l' &otiated (b' the

direction o" the "ood), but the riggl' dance in a "igure o" eight is uite un&otiated (itre"ers to a distance).3 0inall', and as a last e%a&ple o" such ill3de"ined areas, certain

trade3&ar#s used in adertising consist o" purel' abstract (non3analogical) shapes* the'

can, hoeer, e%press a certain i&pression ("or instance one o" poer) hich has arelation o" a""init' ith the signi"ied. !he trade3&ar# o" the Berliet lorries (a circle ith a

thic# arro across it) does not in an' a' cop' poer 3 indeed, ho could one cop'

poer> 3 and 'et suggests it through a latent analog'* the sa&e a&biguit' is to be "oundin the signs o" so&e ideographic ritings (hinese, "or instance).

!he coe%istence o" the analogical and the non3analogical there"ore see&s unuestionable,

een ithin a single s'ste&. Aet se&iolog' cannot be content ith a description

ac#noledging this co&pro&ise ithout tr'ing to s'ste&atise it, "or it cannot ad&it acontinuous di""erential since, as e shall see, &eaning is articulation. !hese proble&s

hae not 'et been studied in detail, and it ould be i&possible to gie a general sure' o"

the&. !he outline o" an econo&' o" signi"ication (at the anthropological leel) can,hoeer, be perceied: in the language, "or instance, the (relatie) &otiation introduces

a certain order at the leel o" the "irst (signi"icant) articulation : the contract is there"ore

in this case underpinned b' a certain naturalisation o" this a priori arbitrariness hich8Fi3Strauss tal#s about* other s'ste&s, on the contrar', can go "ro& &otiation to non3


21/22

&otiation: "or instance the set o" the ritual puppets o" initiation o" the Senou"o, cited b'

8Fi3Strauss in The Sa)age2ind. $t is there"ore probable that at the leel o" the &ost

general se&iolog', hich &erges ith anthropolog', there co&es into being a sort o"circularit' beteen the analogical and the un&otiated: there is a double tendenc' (each

aspect being co&ple&entar' to the other) to naturalise the un&otiated and to

intellectualise the &otiated (that is to sa', to culturalise it). 0inall', so&e authors arecon"ident that digitalis&, hich is the rial o" the analogical, is itsel" in its purest "or& 3

binaris& 3 a reproduction o" certain ph'siological processes, i" it is true that sight and

hearing, in the last anal'sis, "unction b' alternatie selections.

II.%. &ALUE

$$.


22/22

strata (substance and "or&), the signi"ication parta#es o" the substance o" the content, and

alue, o" that o" its "or& "mutton and sheep are in a paradig&atic relation as signifieds

and not, o" course, as signi"iers).

$$.

Roland Barthes Semiology

Documents

Transcript of Roland Barthes Semiology