Bill,
    I agree very much that we need to be careful about this. The literary
view of symbol isn't the "right" one by any means. But to the extent
that it is built oj observations about how the mind itself builds
meaning, it's not irrelevant to a discussion in other fields.
   In the literary case, though, even "conventional" as you define it
wouldn't work. We could think of the whale in Moby Dick as a symbol in
the sense that it gathers so much resonance and meaning as the novel
goes on. It's hard to imagine a critic who wouldn't treat it that way.
But before Melville wrote the book, there was no "convention" to use
whales as symbols in that way. A literary symbol, the best of them at
least, seems to draw on the nature of the element functioning as symbol
in the building of new kinds of meanings. Metaphor, in the same way,
has more power when it's original, not the same old cliche. The source
of a true symbol's meaning derives from a natural power of the mind
(Turner calls it "The Literary Mind") to build unique meanings in that
way. We don't just see things on a literal level, but naturally
generalize out toward other applications.
   If Lakoff and Johnson are correct, metaphor is at the heart of
language. This mental ability allows for the creation of new meanings,
not just the repitition of conventional ones.

Craig  >


Craig,
>
>
>
> By "convention," I was referring only to a situation in which there is no
> necessary connection between a sign and a referent - i.e., you have to
> have learned that the two are connected as part of the
> language-learning/acculturation process, and a different language or
> culture would not have the same sign relationship for that particular
> phonetic sequence, or visual pattern, or what have you. In this particular
> sense, "conventional" doesn't entail "fixed," since cultural signification
> is always in flux.
>
>
>
>  We're running into the typical problem that occurs when a particular
> theorist or field conscripts an already-existent word and uses it with a
> different (and usually more specific) meaning. The term "symbol" in
> general literary discussions isn't the same as "symbol" used by
> semioticians who have adopted quasi-Peircean terminology. A skull can
> certainly be a death-symbol in literary terms, but it would be an index
> to some semioticians, although what it's an index to (death) certainly
> would act as a subsidiary sign that could be a symbol (the meanings we
> attach to death aren't, of course, independent of culture). I suspect
> academics would avoid a lot of problems if we just made up entirely new
> words when we want specific terms...but then even fewer people would read
> our articles.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Bill Spruiell
>
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 10:05 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Semiotics Anyone?
>
>
>
> Bill,
>    To complicate this further (why not), most literature theorists would
> have a hard time with symbol as related to referent by convention.
> Literary symbols tend to work on the literal level, but also suggest or
> radiate (resonate?) additional meanings. Allegories may give us symbols
> with fixed or conventional meanings, but are generally thought of as
> less meaningful than a truer symbol. True symbols don't have fixed
> meanings and they don't stand in for "hidden meanings." No single
> interpretation of them will use up their possibilities.
>    I have been trying to nail down "icon" for some time; it seems to be
> gathering momentum as an important word. The OED gives "draft
> additions" from 2001 as "a person or thing regarded as representative
> symbol, especially of a culture or movement; a person, institution,
> etc., considered worthy of admiration or respect."
>    I haven't seen it explicitly defined that way, but I think it also
> carries a sense of being irreducible. It is, in itself, the best
> explanation we have for the meaning it stands for.
>
> Craig
> Spruiell, William C wrote:
>
> Carol, Dee, et al.:
>
>
>
> In a sense, linguistics is a branch of semiotics - while a very large
> proportion of work in semiotics has been on language, and while
> historically a good number of semioticians have used analyses of language
> as a starting point, the field in and of itself isn't specifically
> "linguistic." As an analogy even more flawed than my usual ones, semiotics
> is to linguistics as physics is to astronomy.  Terms like "symbol" are a
> major headache - they're used by different semioticians with different
> meanings, so you have to know whose terms they are. One of the more common
> schemes, taken from Peirce, is as follows:
>
>
>
> 'icon' à related to referent by direct similarity (e.g. picture of
> mountain standing for mountain)
>
> 'index' à related to referent by cause/effect connection (smoke standing
> for fire)
>
> 'symbol' à related to referent only by convention (most linguistic signs)
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Bill Spruiell
>
> Dept. of English
>
> Central Michigan University
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:37 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Semiotics Anyone?
>
>
>
> Thank you!  Right now I am trying to distinguish between "signs" and
> symbols." I believe there is a difference, correct? I read that a sign (in
> language theory) is a compound consisting of a signifier and a signified,
> whereas a symbol is something else. I probably need to do more outside
> reading on it.
>
>
> -- On Wed, 9/10/08, Dee Allen-Kirkhouse <[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>
> 	From: Dee Allen-Kirkhouse <[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> 	Subject: Re: Semiotics Anyone?
> 	To: [log in to unmask]
> 	Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 8:29 PM
>
> 	Carol,
>
>
>
> 	Semiotics is a branch of linguistics, but it also has a place in other
> disciplines.  When I teach introduction to linguistics, I cover
> semiotics, and I have used it in  literature classes to help students
> understand the text.  I have a colleague who teaches philosophy, and he
> covers it in his classes.  Signs and symbols are important in a variety
> of ways.  On a practical level, think about all the "universal signs" we
> have in airports and other public places.  The figure with the skirt
> directs us to the women's restrooms and the men look for the figure
> wearing pants.  Street signs are part of semiotics.
>
>
>
> 	Dee Allen-Kirkhouse
>
>
>
>
>
> 		----- Original Message -----
>
> 		From: Carol Morrison <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> 		To: [log in to unmask]
>
> 		Sent: 9/10/2008 5:16:00 PM
>
> 		Subject: Semiotics Anyone?
>
>
>
> Hello fellow Grammarians:
>
> I have a question regarding the field of "semiotics" (the theory and study
> of signs and symbols; reading signs-for those who aren't familiar). Is
> semiotics a science unto itself or is it a branch of linguistics? The
> reader I am using in one of my freshman writing courses, Signs of Life,
> uses a semiotic approach to interpreting literature and other cultural
> texts. One of my students asked me today if semiotics is used in any other
> fields aside from English studies and language. Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks much.
> Carol Morrison
>
>
> 		To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
>
> 		Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> 	To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
>
> 	Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/