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