SEMIOTIC PIERCE

Terry Rankin, Analytic tradition, intensional realist, Peircean semiotics

Answered May 10, 2016
Ramakrishnan Parthasarathy's answer is basically right. 'Semiology' was introduced by Swiss
linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) as his name for the 'theory of signs'. American
philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) used 'semiotics' in the same way. In this sense, the
two terms are just different names for the same idea or study or theory, namely, that of signs.

Peirce and de Saussure are generally acknowledged to be the independent founders or fathers of
20th-century semiotics/semiology.

Much discussion and debate continue concerning the nature of this field. In my own opinion, Peirce's
model, approach, and position are superior. It must be said however, that de Saussure's perspective
is more widely studied and applied.

With the 20th-century impact of neopositivism and the subsequent Linguistic Turn, the philosophy
of language emerged as the primary if not the exclusive focus of all philosophy in general, and our
linguistic capabilities came to be regarded as the sine qua non of human cognition, regarded by
many as the very essence of our cognitive nature as such. de Saussure's emphasis on
the symbolic aspects of semiology as the most significant, powerful, and important part of the field
emerged as an appealing and strong 'scientific' foundation for linguistics and other human sciences,
including sociology, anthropology, and others.

Peirce's semiotics is at least as robust as de Saussure's account of symbolic semiosis, and he goes
much further in explicating the significance and power of indexical (or causal) and iconic (or
sentient) sign theory in addition to its symbolic (or sapient) aspects. His own remarks best convey
just how comprehensive and fundamental the notion of 'signs' really is:

Symbolic sapient dispositions only partially describe and explain human cognition. Iconic (sentient)
and indexical (causal) dispositions are needed to complete that model of our cognitive abilities.
Indeed, the empirical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) seek to discover the causal laws of
nature and the cosmos, and that is not attainable without understanding the semiosis of indexical
processes. This is why I, for one, prefer Peirce's more comprehensive semiotics to de Saussure's
narrower semiology, on philosophical as well as scientific grounds.

Liana Ogden, Zoobiographer

Updated Jun 2, 2016 Upvoted by Nick Nicholas, PhD in Linguistics from Melbourne University, lectured
historical linguistics
[Note:

Sassure's signifier is often compared to Peirce's sign.

Saussure's signified is often compared to Peirces object.
I will also draw parallels between signifier & sign; signified & object. These are not perfect analogies.
There are differences between the two--for example, Peirce's sign is a much broader category than
Saussure's signifier, as it extends into the physical world--but I find that it helps to map them on to
each other when first approaching the two theories.
For claritys sake I will refer only to Saussures terms, but please note that when I write about Peirce I
have his original terms, sign and object, in mind.]

For Saussure, signifier and signified are inseparablethey are like the front and back of a sheet of
paper. One does not exist without the other, and conversely, one always implicates the other. They
are each the other's condition of possibility.

For example: Upon seeing the word 'tree', you immediately understand what the word signifies,
despite the fact that the letters E and T and R have nothing to do with the woody, leafy qualities of a
tree. Every signifier is completely arbitrary, having no inherent relation to the physical world; yet,
according to Saussure, signifier and signified simply do not exist without each other. I cannot
imagine a tree without the use of the 'sound-image' of a tree. I can't conjure up the imagery of a
sycamore or birch without the word (what Saussure calls a sound-image) of tree, or arbol or arbre
etc. (Saussure noted 2 exceptions to this rule: onomatopoeia and mathematical notation).

Meaning comes about through the codependent workings of signifier and signified. Try to think of
any thing, whether concrete or abstract, and the word used to describe it will immediately pop into
your mind- and vice versa. Saussure argues that it is impossible to bypass this feedback loop; as
humans it is impossible for us, on a fundamental level, to separate signifier and signified because the
two terms only ever occur simultaneously.

For Peirce, however, there is a third element that is necessary for signification to occur:
the interpretant, or the understanding of the relation between signifier and signified. If for Saussure
signifier and signified are like the front and back of a sheet of paper, then for Peirce there must be a
third element: the physical paper itself. This third element is what he calls the interpretant. Signifier
and signified are linked by the interpretant; signifier only accesses its signified in being interpreted.
You might think of the interpretant as a prism, or a magnifying glass. It focuses our attention on the
relationship between the signifier and signified. I find that this version of semiotics is best
understood when the signifiers are physical objects rather than words.

For example: Smoke can be a signifier of fire. The interpretant here--the prism that turns the sight of
smoke (Peirces sign/Saussures signifier) into an understanding that 'fire is there'
(Peirces object/Saussures signified)--is the understanding of the physical relationship between
smoke and fire.

Simply put:
The difference between the two theories boils down to a multi-step, causal generation of meaning vs.
a co-existing generation of meaning. A crude analogy might be: a child developing into adult self over
time (meaning la Peirce) vs. the myth of Athena, springing fully formed, a grown woman, from her
fathers head ( la Saussure).

Peirce mandates that a sign/signifier must be interpreted to exist. A sign/signifier generates an

interpretant, which in turn allows us to access its object/signified. Resemblance and
physical causality are important features in the generation of meaning in the physical world.

Saussure, on the other hand, eschews resemblance or causality. In his version of semiotics, signifier
and signified are arbitrarily linked and inseparable. They create meaning simultaneously,
together.

Tokoh-tokoh dalam Kajian Semiotik

Ketika kita berbicara mengenai sebuah kajian ilmu atau sebuah teori, maka tidak bisa terlepas dari
tokoh-tokoh yang mencetuskan kajian tersebut. Semiotik tentunya memiliki tokoh-tokoh yang menjadi
pemikir terbentuknya sebuah tradisi semiotik itu sendiri, tokoh-tokoh dalam kajian semiotik adalah :

Ferdinand de Saussure :

Saussure menjadi salah satu tokoh yang berkecimbung dalam kajian semiotik. Tokoh yang terkenal
dengan konsep semiotik Signifier (Penanda) dan signified (petanda) ini telah menjadi memperkenalkan
konsep kajian semiotik yang memberikan sumbangsih terbesar bagi kajian keilmuan.

Roland Barthes :

Tokoh yang selanjutnya adalah Roland Barthes. Barthes menjadi tokoh yang begitu identik dengan kajian
semiotik. Pemikiran semiotik Barthes bisa dikatakan paling banyak digunakan dalam penelitian. Konsep
pemikiran Barthes terhadap semiotik terkenal dengan konsep mythologies atau mitos. Sebagai penerus
dari pemikiran Saussure, Roland Barthes menekankan interaksi antara teks dengan pengalaman
personal dan kultural penggunanya, interaksi antara konvensi dalam teks dengan konvensi yang dialami
dan diharapkan oleh penggunanya. (Kriyantono, 2007 : 268). Konsep pemikiran Barthes yang
operasional ini dikenal dengan Tatanan Pertandaan (Order of Signification). Secara sederhana, kajian
semiotik Barthes bisa dijabarkan sebagai berikut :

Denotasi
Denotasi merupakan makna sesungguhnya, atau sebuah fenomena yang tampak dengan panca indera,
atau bisa juga disebut deskripsi dasar. Contohnya adalah Coca-Cola merupakan minuman soda yang
diproduksi oleh PT. Coca-Cola Company, dengan warna kecoklatan dan kaleng berwarna merah.

Konotasi

Konotasi merupakan makna-makna kultural yang muncul atau bisa juga disebut makna yang muncul
karena adanya konstruksi budaya sehingga ada sebuah pergeseran, tetapi tetap melekat pada simbol
atau tanda tersebut. Contoh adalah Coca-Cola merupakan minuman yang identik dengan budaya
modern, di mana Coca-Cola menjadi salah satu produk modern dan cenderung kapitalis. Dengan
mengkonsumsi Coca-Cola, seorang individu akan tampak modern dan bisa dikatakan memiliki pemikiran
budaya populer.

Dua aspek kajian dari Barthes di atas merupakan kajian utama dalam meneliti mengenai semiotik.
Kemudian Barthes juga menyertakan aspek mitos, yaitu di mana ketika aspek konotasi menjadi
pemikiran populer di masyarakat, maka mitos telah terbentuk terhadap tanda tersebut. Pemikiran
Barthes inilah yang dianggap paling operasional sehingga sering digunakan dalam penelitian.

Charles Sanders Pierce :

Analisis semiotik Pierce terdiri dari tiga aspek penting sehingga sering disebut dengan segitiga makna
atau triangle of meaning (Littlejohn, 1998). Tiga aspek tersebut adalah :

Tanda
Dalam kajian semiotik, tanda merupakan konsep utama yang dijadikan sebagai bahan analisis di mana di
dalam tanda terdapat makna sebagai bentuk interpretasi pesan yang dimaksud. Secara sederhana,
tanda cenderung berbentuk visual atau fisik yang ditangkap oleh manusia.

2. Acuan tanda atau objek

Objek merupakan konteks sosial yang dalam implementasinya dijadikan sebagai aspek pemaknaan atau
yang dirujuk oleh tanda tersebut.

3. Pengguna Tanda (interpretant)

Konsep pemikiran dari orang yang menggunakan tanda dan menurunkannya ke suatu makna tertentu
atau makna yang ada dalam benak seseorang tentang objek yang dirujuk sebuah tanda. (Kriyantono,
2007 : 263).

Semiotika Charles Sander Peirce

Posted: October 14, 2013 in Uncategorized

Menurut Peirce semiotika didasarkan pada logika, karena logika mempelajari bagaimana orang bernalar,
sedangkan penalaran menurut Peirce dilakukan melalui tanda-tanda. Tanda-tanda memungkinkan kita
berpikir, berhubungan dengan orang lain dan memberi makna pada apa yang ditampilkan oleh alam
semesta. Kita mempunyai kemungkinan yang luas dalam keanekaragaman tanda-tanda, dan di
antaranya tanda-tanda linguistik merupakan kategori yang penting, tetapi bukan satu-satunya kategori.
Dengan mengembangkan semiotika, Peirce memusatkan perhatian pada berfungsinya tanda pada
umumnya. Ia memberi tempat yang penting pada linguistik, namun bukan satu-satunya. Hal yang
berlaku bagi tanda pada umumnya berlaku pula bagi tanda linguistik, tapi tidak sebaliknya. Menurut
Peirce tanda-tanda berkaitan dengan objek-objek yang menyerupainya, keberadaannya memiliki
hubungan sebab-akibat dengan tanda-tanda atau karena ikatan konvensional dengan tanda-tanda
tersebut. Dengan demikian sebenarnya Peirce telah menciptakan teori umum untuk tanda-tanda. Secara
lebih tegas ia telah memberikan dasar-dasar yang kuat pada teori tersebut dalam tulisan yang tersebar
dalam berbagai teks dan dikumpulkan dua puluh lima tahun setelah kematiannya dalam Ouvres
Completes (karya lengkap). Teks-teks tersebut mengandung pengulangan dan pembetulan dan hal ini
menjadi tugas penganut semiotika Peirce untuk menemukan koherensi dan menyaring hal-hal yang
penting. Peirce mengehendaki agar teorinya yang bersifat umum ini dapat diterapkan pada segala
macam tanda, dan untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut, ia memerlukan konsep-konsep baru. Untuk
melengkapi konsep itu ia menciptakan kata-kata baru yang diciptakannya sendiri (Kaelan, 2009: 166).
Untitled

Bagi Peirce, tanda is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity.
Sesuatu yang digunakan agar tanda bisa berfungsi, oleh Peirce disebut ground. Konsekuensinya, tanda
(sign atau representamen) selalu terdapat dalam hubungan triadik, yakni ground, object, dan
interpretant. Atas dasar hubungan ini, Peirce mengadakan klasifikasi tanda. Tanda yang dikaitkan
dengan ground dibaginya menjadi qualisign, sinsign, dan legisign. Qualisign adalah kualitas yang ada
pada tanda, misalnya kata-kata kasar, keras, lemah, lembut, merdu. Sinsign adalah eksistensi aktual
benda atau peristiwa yang ada pada tanda; misalnya kata kabur atau keruh yang ada pada urutan kata
air sungai keruh yang menandakan bahwa ada hujan di hulu sungai. Legisign adalah norma yang
dikandung oleh tanda, misalnya rambu-rambu lalu lintas yang menandakan hal-hal yang boleh atau tidak
boleh dilakukan manusia.

Berdasarkan objeknya, Peirce membagi tanda atas icon (ikon), index (indeks), dan symbol (simbol). Ikon
adalah tanda yang hubungan antara penanda dan petandanya bersifat bersamaan bentuk alamiah. Atau
dengan kata lain, ikon adalah hubungan hubungan antara tanda dan objek atau acuan yang bersifat
kemiripan; misalnya, potret dan peta. Indeks adalah tanda yang menunjukkan adanya hubungan alamiah
antara tanda dan petanda yang bersifat kausal atau hubungan sebab akibat, atau tanda yang langsung
mengacu pada kenyataan. Contoh yang paling jelas ialah asap sebagai tanda adanya api. Tanda dapat
pula mengacu ke denotatum melalui konvensi. Tanda seperti itu adalah tanda konvensional yang biasa
disebut simbol. Jadi, simbol adalah tanda yang menunjukkan hubungan alamiah antara penanda dengan
petandanya. Hubungan di antaranya bersifat arbriter atau semena, hubungan berdasarkan konvensi
(perjanjian) masyarakat.

Berdasarkan interpretant, tanda (sign, representamen) dibagi atas rheme, dicent sign atau dicisign dan
argument. Rheme adalah tanda yang memungkinkan orang menafsirkan berdasarkan pilihan. Misalnya,
orang yang merah matanya dapat saja menandakan bahwa orang itu baru menangis, atau menderita
penyakit mata, atau mata dimasuki insekta, atau baru bangun, atau ingin tidur. Dicent sign atau dicisign
adalah tanda sesuai kenyataan. Misalnya, jika pada suatu jalan sering terjadi kecelakaan, maka di tepi
jalan dipasang rambu lalu lintas yang menyatakan bahwa di situ sering terjadi kecelakaan. Argument
adalah tanda yang langsung memberikan alasan tentang sesuatu (Sobur, 2006: 41-42).

Berdasarkan berbagai klasifikasi tersebut, Peirce membagi tanda menjadi sepuluh jenis (Sobur, 2006: 42-
43).:

1) Qualisign, yakni kualitas sejauh yang dimiliki tanda. kata keras menunjukkan kualitas tanda.
misalnya, suaranya keras yang menandakan orang itu marah atau ada sesuatu yang diinginkan.
2) Inconic Sinsign, yakni tanda yang memperlihatkan kemiripan. Contoh: foto, diagram, peta, dan
tanda baca.

3) Rhematic Indexical Sinsign, yakni tanda berdasarkan pengalaman langsung, yang secara
langsung menarik perhatian karena kehadirannya disebabkan oleh sesuatu. Contoh: pantai yang sering
merenggut nyawa orang yang mandi di situ akan dipasang bendera bergambar tengkorak yang
bermakna, dilarang mandi di sini.

4) Dicent Sinsign, yakni tanda yang memberikan informasi tentang sesuatu. Misalnya, tanda
larangan yang terdapat di pintu masuk sebuah kantor.

5) Iconic Legisign, yakni tanda yang menginformasikan norma atau hukum. Misalnya, rambu lalu
lintas.

6) Rhematic Indexical Legisign, yakni tanda yang mengacu kepada objek tertentu, misalnya kata
ganti penunjuk. Seseorang bertanya, Mana buku itu? dan dijawab, Itu!

7) Dicent Indexical Legisign, yakni tanda yang bermakna informasi dan menunjuk subyek
informasi. Tanda berupa lampu merah yang berputar-putar di atas mobil ambulans menandakan ada
orang sakit atau orang yang celaka yang tengah dilarikan ke rumah sakit.

8) Rhematic Symbol atau Symbolic Rheme, yakni tanda yang dihubungkan dengan objeknya
melalui asosiasi ide umum. Misalnya, kita melihat gambar harimau. Lantas kita katakan, harimau.
Mengapa kita katakan demikian, karena ada asosiasi antara gambar dengan benda atau hewan yang kita
lihat yang namanya harimau.

9) Dicent Symbol atau Proposition (porposisi) adalah tanda yang langsung meghubungkan dengan
objek melalui asosiasi dalam otak. Kalau seseorang berkata, Pergi! penafsiran kita langsung berasosiasi
pada otak, dan sertamerta kita pergi. Padahal proposisi yang kita dengar hanya kata. Kata-kata yang kita
gunakan yang membentuk kalimat, semuanya adalah proposisi yang mengandung makna yang
berasosiasi di dalam otak. Otak secara otomatis dan cepat menafsirkan proposisi itu, dan seseorang
secara otomatis dan cepat menafsirkan proposisi itu, dan seseorang segera menetapkan pilihan atau
sikap.
10) Argument, yakni tanda yang merupakan iferens seseorang terhadap sesuatu berdasarkan alasan
tertentu. Seseorang berkata, Gelap. Orang itu berkata gelap sebab ia menilai ruang itu cocok
dikatakan gelap. Dengan demikian argumen merupakan tanda yang berisi penilaian atau alasan,
mengapa seseorang berkata begitu. Tentu saja penilaian tersebut mengandung kebenaran.

From david saputra wordpress

Charles Sanders Peirce (18391914) formulated the innovative triadic model of the
sign, emphasizing in his theory that the way we interpret a sign is what allows it to be
signified what gives it its meaning.

Therefore, the main attributes of any sign need to be clear enough to relay their
intended meaning.

What is a Sign?
Peirces theory does not focus on just material or concrete signs, but any kind of sign.
For example, if a bus driver announces that the next stop is Central Station and a
passenger rings the bell, lighting up the stop sign then the sign system here has
been understood.

The message contained in the drivers announcement is the sign that he will drive
straight past that terminal if noone responds. His announcement is Peirces
representamen or Saussures signifier. How the passengers react is the interpretant
or signified, or sense made of the sign.

If the driver stops or carries on, that is the referent, the object of the sign. A passenger
rings the bell and the stop sign lights up the drivers sign has been understood.

The driver interprets the sound of the bell as representing a sign informing him he must
stop. The other passengers on the bus understand this, too, from the sound of the bell
and the lighted sign. Both represent that the bus will stop the object of the sign.

Peirces Three Sign Modes

We are surrounded by an infinite number of signs. Peirce understood this and offered
many different principles for how to categorize them according to their three triadic
elements: representamen, object and intrepretant.

He proposed that signs could be classified according to the qualities, facts, laws and
conventions associated with the objects. This way of tabulating signs led to ten different
sign types.

By examining the relationship between objects, interpretants, and representamens and,

in particular, the way the referent determines the sign, Peirce also distinguished three
main modes into which signs can be assigned: symbol, icon and index.

Index signs are easier to understand and more commonly used.

Symbol or Symbolic Sign

In this mode, the symbol or symbolic sign is assigned arbitrarily or is accepted as
societal convention. Therefore, the relationship between the representamen and what
the sign stands for its object or referent and the sense behind it, the interpretant
must be learned. For example, letters of the alphabet, the number system,
mathematical signs, computer code, punctuation marks, traffic signs, national flags and
so forth.

Iconic paintings have meaning as well as aesthetic value. Image by Lesley Lanir

Icon or Iconic Sign

As an icon, the representamen resembles or imitates its signified object in that it
possesses some of its qualities. Therefore, the relationship between what the sign
stands for its referent and the sense behind it, the interpretant does not necessarily
have to be learned. For example, a portrait, a cartoon, sound effects, or a statue.
 Are tire tracks indexical signs, icons or symbols? Image by Lesley Lanir

Index or Indexical Sign

An index is a mode in which the signifier might not resemble its signified object. It is not
arbitrarily assigned and is directly connected in some way to the object. Nevertheless,
the relationship between what the sign stands for its referent and the sense behind it,
the interpretant may have to be learned.
The link between the representamen and its object may only be inferred; for instance,
smoke, thunder, footprints, flavors, a door bell ringing, or a photograph, film or DVD
recording.

Symbol, Icon or Index?

The three modes have different levels of conventionality, predictability and
conformity. For example, symbols such as letters and numbers are usually highly
conventional. The system is determined, fixed and understood. Iconic signs usually
have some degree of conventionality, and indexical signs, according to Peirces
writings, can direct the attention to their objects by blind compulsion.

The indirect links between icons and indices suggest that a referential context exists
outside the sign-system and, as Peirce emphasized, the three forms are not necessarily
mutually exclusive. For Peirce, semiotics was a process of understanding and not a
structured system, so a sign under this model can be perceived as an icon, symbol or
index, or a combination of the three depending on its use and interpretation.

Sources:
Peirce, C. Collected Writings (8 Vols.). (1931-58). Ed. Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss
& Arthur W Burks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Atkin, A. Peirces Theory of Signs. (2010). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Accessed December 29, 2012.

Copyright 2012 Lesley Lanir, All rights Reserved. Written For: Decoded Science

The principle difference among Saussure, Pierce, Barthes and Sapir is the way in which
they conceive the Linguistic. Saussure is called the father of the linguistic. Besides, he
studied deeply the semiology. For Saussure sign is composed by signifier and signified.
He explained 3 dichotomies, language and speech, signifier and signified, finally
connotation and denotation. The Saussure theory gives a broad chronology of the study
of linguistics, and in the process covers many different aspects in the study of linguistics,
first talking about psychology, sound production, mental processes, words, symbols and
meanings. Then, he goes into detail about many of these aspects in more depth covering
the aspects of languages (and how they change) and finally ends up talking about
symbols (and sounds as symbols) and how to describe elements of meaning to them
using terms like identies, realities and values.

Meanwhile, Pierce studied the semiology too, but he talked about new concepts, he did
not think sign composed by dichotomies. Pierces sign has 3 components.
Representamen, it is something that enters into relation with its object. 2. Object "semiotic
object", it is what the sign relates to, but it cannot be the same as the real object because
our knowledge is not absolute. The semiotic real object is that which we can pick up with
our senses. 3. Interpretant, it is close to what we would take as the signs meaning (or
how we interpret it), it relates and mediates between the representamen and the object
while at the same time interrelating them with itself.

Pierce said that there are three classes of signs. 1. Icons, an icon interrelates with its
semiotic object because they have similarities. (A photo as an icon of the person or item
in it) 2. Indices has a more natural or physical relation with its semiotic object. (Smoke =
cigarette) 3. Symbols is a sign which is interpreted depending on the social "convention".
The sound or word has no direct relationship with the sign. While, Saussure did not
understand the symbol as a kind of sign for its arbitrariness. Also, Pierce proposed 3
categories for the sign: firstness is possibility (a might be), secondness is actuality (what
happens to be at the moment), and thirdness is potentiality, probability or necessity (what
would be, could be, or should be, given a certain set of conditions)
In other hand Barthes adopted many of the Saussure concepts. He studied them deeply
and put them on discussion. He tried to structure the semiology elements. He explain the
dichotomies that Saussere proposed. First he talked about signifier and signified, acoustic
image and concept; but he suggest these would be a problem taking into account that the
others linguistics did not understand the sign in the same way