Chapter 2 Of discourses, semiosis and representation
2.4 Introducing semiosis
2.4.2 Pierce‘s semiotic paradigm
While de Saussure‘s theory of semiotics had its roots in structural linguistics, Pierce‘s, just like Bhaskar, is a branch of philosophy (Deledalle, 2000). However, Pierce‘s theory of semiotics is more complex and his understanding of signs evolved over the years (Atkin, 2010). This has also influenced changes in terminology. As a result, it is impossible to give a full account of his paradigm in this section.
Nonetheless, for the purposes of this discussion, aspects of his theory that reveal a critical realist inclination will be favoured.
Pierce suggested that anything could be considered a sign which stands in some kind of relation to something (Deledalle, 2000). He saw this sign relation as the key to an understanding of the process of representation. The sign relation is composed of three elements which though exclusive to each other in terms of their role in the meaning-making process, are also dependent upon each other. These elements are the sign, also called the representamen, the object and the interpretant. It is important to note that Pierce used the word ‗sign‘ to refer to both the whole semiotic unit as well as to one of the units (Nellhaus, 1998). This makes his typology confusing and also causes slippage in discussions of the sign. The object is that to which the sign refers, that is the subject of the sign and is analogous to Bhaskar‘s (1993) notion of the referent. The interpretant, on the other hand, refers to the meaning that is drawn from the sign, and compares with Bhaskar‘s signified.
Pierce also identified three types of signs namely; the icon, the index and the symbol (Nilan, 2007). The icon is identified by its resemblance/similarity to the subject.
Hence, people can make meaning of a sign based on its resemblance or analogy to the original. Thus a picture of something is an icon. Metaphors can also be considered iconic signs given they are used to make implicit comparisons between objects based on their resemblance in respect of some characteristic. For example, when we say ‗ideas bear fruit‘, we are measuring the worth of the ideas based on the outcomes, just as much as we judge the value of a tree by its ability to reproduce.
Like Bhaskar, Pierce believed that the iconic sign (metaphor, analogy in Bhaskar‘s typology) enabled people to make sense of the world. The indexical sign can be understood as a suggestive sign (Deledalle, 2000). Let us take the example of the relationship between fire and smoke2. Whenever we see smoke, we interpret the sign to mean that there is a fire somewhere. This interpretation is brought about by our shared frame of reference that smoke is the resultant of a fire (object). In this case the object (fire) determines the sign (smoke); there is a causal relationship between the index and the object. Sufficing to say, there is no smoke without a fire.
2Example taken from Atkin (2010).Pierce‘s theory of signs.In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/. Accessed 13 July, 2011
The last of these, is the symbol. The symbol-object relationship is characterised by an arbitrary relationship. For instance, the flag of South Africa is a symbol which signifies the diversity that characterises the country. The ‗crown‘, (both the word and the picture) can be used to represent royalty. Thus, linguistic elements such as metonymies can be regarded as symbolic signs.
The interpretant as well as the object also have several other components attached to them. With regard to the object, Pierce identified two sub categories which he named the dynamical and the immediate object. The immediate object refers to the sign as it presents itself. In other words, the immediate object refers to the perception or knowledge that we have of the sign. Therefore, the immediate object has a transitive/epistemological dimension (following Bhaskar, 1993). This suggests that the immediate object is not necessarily the real object; rather there is another layer that lies beneath. Pierce called this layer the dynamical object which can only be identified and understood through experience. Hence, it has an intransitive and ontological dimension (Bhaskar, 1993). In this way, the sign cannot articulate this object; rather, it can only point to its existence and leave the interpreter to find out through experience. Clearly, Pierce‘s distinctions between the dynamic and the immediate objects share an affinity with Bhaskar‘s transitive and intransitive domains of the sign.
Concerning the interpretant, Pierce also recognised three categories as the immediate, the energetic and the logical. Unlike the sign/representamen and the object, the interpretant is not necessarily a concept. For instance, the immediate interpretant relates to emotions that the sign evokes such as recognition, acceptance and interest or uncertainty. Pierce believed that these emotions are indicative that the sign has been understood. Sometimes, understanding of the sign is manifested in more than emotions; it might evoke some form of action. This is the energetic interpretant. Nonetheless, both the immediate and the dynamic interpretants are indicative of a partial understanding of the dynamic object. The ultimate interpretant involves more than emotions and actions; rather it invokes thought. Hence, the logical interpretant, unlike the other two interpretants, maybe a concept. If it involves thought, then it means that the logical interpretant maybe the object of further
semiosis. This thought process can lead to the development, conditioning or change of habits. Nellhaus (1998) explains:
It means that humans are constantly developing dim perceptions into fully-blown concepts, rethinking our past and so forth ad infinitum. (Nellhaus, 1998 p. 6)
Understanding semiosis as a process which leads to the development/conditioning and strengthening of habits underlies a realist understanding of identity as will be revealed in Chapter 5. Unsurprisingly, Pierce‘s theory of semiotics is perceived as a realist theory of representation and thus relevant to critical realism (see Cashell, 2009; Nellhaus, 1998; Fairclough et al., 2004).
Translated to academic literacy, Pierce‘s formulation of signs would entail exploring the relation between academic literacy (sign which is iconic, indexical and symbolic);
students‘ writing (the object) and discourses that are used to talk about students‘
writing (interpretant of the sign). As a sign, academic literacy can be regarded as an indexical sign, in the sense that it points to mastery of the discourse. As an iconic sign, academic literacy is a metaphor for success, which has also generated metaphors of its own to justify its existence. However, in HEIs, academic literacy is understood by focusing attention on its relationship with the object (for instance writing). Hence, the object writing, determines the sign, academic literacy, which further determines the d/Discourses that are used to talk about academic literacy. In Pierce‘s theory the interpretant, in this case, are the d/Discourses that are used to talk about literacy, which can also have further interpretants. These can also be understood if academic literacy is taken as a symbolic sign. As a symbolic sign, academic literacy represents something much more than the ability to read and write. It represents access to social mobility; to the symbolic goods like education, access to financial and job opportunities.
Clearly, Bhaskar‘s (1993) as well as Pierce‘s (cited in Delledale, 2000; Nellhaus, 1998) conceptions of signs render interesting insights for my study. First, they indicate semiosis as part of a social practice; hence it is more than a linguistic system, but represents ―all signifying systems as elements within and across semiotically functioning organisms‖ (Stables and Gough, 2006 p. 271). Second, they help establish how signs are constructed and reinforced through social structures.
Thus, meaning, is not inherent in the signs themselves, but rather originates from
relationships with other things; as a result, living is a semiotic engagement (Stables and Gough, 2006). Most importantly, semiotics, offers both methodological and theoretical tools that can be used to understand representation in the context of academic literacy.