SEMIOTICS AND

COMMUNICATION
UNIT 1
DOCENTES A CARGO
 Prof. Luis Posadas

LICENCIATURA EN INGLES
 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

SEMIOTICS AND COMMUNICATION – UNIT 1

Specific objectives
The student should be able to:
1. Understand the fundamentals of semiotic and epistemological principles that
support the discipline and serve as a basis for associated disciplines.
2. Establish relationships between semiotics and its various branches, with an
emphasis on human language and communication.
3. Address the complexity of human communication in some of its dimensions.
4. Recognize and analyze some pieces of discourse typical of today's society.

Contents
Introduction.
1. Saussure: language; linguistic sign and value
1.1 language: language and speech.
1.2 Linguistics as a branch of semiotics.
1.3 The linguistic sign.
1.4 The linguistic value.
1.5 Syntagmatic relationships and associative relationships.
2. Peirce and the triadic sign.

Página | 2 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

INTRODUCTION TO SEMIOTICS
This first unit attempts to provide a broad but specific overview of different positions
about the ways of producing meaning in our society. For this reason, we present an
illustrative summary of some of the main currents of semiotics, that is, the science that
studies signs.
We start with structuralist semiology for a simple reason: it was the one that
dominated the theoretical discussions in great part of this century, and because the
concept of arbitrariness of the linguistic sign serves as a starting point for the discussion
of the production processes of the meaning of the visual sign.
It is worth making a terminological clarification: No distinction is made here between
'semiotics' and 'semiology'. Both terms will be considered synonyms. We employ one
or the other term simply to maintain the one that has been used in each approach. For
example, Peirce proposes a 'semiotics' while Saussure refers to 'semiology'. Indeed,
the two terms can be interpreted as expressions that evoke “the same meaning”: the
science of signs.
It is the panorama that we are trying to offer here, we look for an integrative look at
two very different lines that have marked a good part of the research on meaning:
structuralism and the semiotics of Peirce.
1. SAUSSURE: LANGUAGE; LINGUISTIC SIGN AND VALUE
The works of the Genevan linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) constitute the
founding axis of what later became known as structuralism and became the paradigm
of research in linguistics and anthropology in the Europe of the 1960s. Key to
structuralism are the notions of system, levels and value.
1.1 LANGUAGE, LANGUAGE AND SPEECH
One of the main contributions of Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics (published in
1916, after his death) consists of the definition of the object of study of the science of
language. Unlike linguistics, other disciplines are handled with objects of study given in
advance. For example, Biology finds in living beings a specific object of study. Though
there are numerous branches and specialties, biology has developed methods that
allow you to study your object and, in particular, you do not need to define a focus to
establish biology itself as a scientific discipline. This, says Saussure, does not happen in
linguistics. If we consider, for example, the word cat, we notice that there are a number
of different alternatives to consider: as sound, as an expression of an idea, as a

Página | 3 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

correspondence with the Latin catus, as an example of the word class noun, etc. In
short, aspects of language seem innumerable and incomprehensible.
Although Saussure does not make it explicit, it is emphasized that the foundations of
Linguistics will serve for the study of any language. In general terms, the expression
language fits any language but it is not limited to any particular language. Aware of the
methodological exploration that is being carried out, Saussure presents a fundamental
attribute that for him distinguishes linguistics from other sciences: “Far from the object
preceding the point of view, it would be said that it is the point of view that creates the
object” (Saussure 1916: 36). This idea allows us to consider the enormous complexity
of the linguistic facts, among which phenomena such as the following stand out.
(1) Sounds are articulated by the vocal apparatus and are perceived by the ear.
(2) Sounds correspond to ideas or concepts, and thus form a complex physiological and
mental unit of sound and meaning.
(3) Language has a social side and an individual side, because it belongs to all the
members of a community and, also, each one of the speakers in particular knows it and
has it, as it were, internalized in his own mind.
(4) Language supposes, at the same time, a system at a certain time (for example, the
Spanish of Buenos Aires at the end of the 20th century) and an evolution (which in the
case of Spanish goes back to Vulgar Latin and, even further back in time, to a
hypothetical Indo-European). In short, language is at each moment a current institution
and a product of the past.
Phenomena (1) to (4) are specific examples of the complexity of language. This
complexity shows that if we wanted to study all the aspects of language at the same
time, the object of study of linguistics would appear to us as an inaccessible nebula.
Then, as "the point of view creates the object", Saussure considers that it is essential
that Linguistics is defined as a science by clearly establishing what its object of study is.
He proposes the following definitions out of a methodological need:
Speaking (langage): it is the absolute totality of linguistic phenomena.
It has the following characteristics:
 It is both physical (because of the sounds that are perceived), physiological
(because of the articulation of sounds) and psychological (by means of the
representation of concepts). It belongs to the individual domain, that is, to the

Página | 4 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

everyday acts of speech, which are completely temporary, unique and

unrepeatable.
 It belongs to the social domain.
Due to its inaccessible complexity, it cannot be studied by linguistics.
Language (langue): is the system that belongs to the entire linguistic community, that
is why it is of a social nature. It is in the mind of each and every speaker, that is why
language is mental. The language system does not vary from one individual to another
individual. It is, in short, a totality in itself and a principle of classification.
Speech (parole): is the part of the language that belongs exclusively to the individual
domain; it is the use of the system (the use of language) in everyday interaction.
Due to its ephemeral nature and because it is completely variable from one case to
another, speech cannot be the object of linguistic study either.
The proposed definitions can be represented through a very simple equivalence:
Speaking = Language + Speech
Speaking consists of the totality of facts that involve both the system and the use of
the system. If we follow the same procedure, then we have:
Language = Speaking - Speech
Language consists of the ordered system, those aspects of language that are not the
usage. Here we see the fundamental idea of value: Saussure proposes a system where
each constituent "is worth" for its relationship with the others, or more precisely
because of their opposition to others. If each element of the system is what the others
are not, then it can be affirmed that language is the part of speaking that is not speech,
and vice versa.
The proposal of dualities constitutes a fundamental resource for Saussure. The first of
these dualities, that of language versus speech, allows him to establish a definition of
what the object of study of linguistics is. In light of the immense variety of the facts of
language, which include both the system that can be a principle of classification
(language), as well as the use of the system in particular situations (speech), Saussure
advises us this:

Página | 5 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

In our opinion, there is only one solution for all these

difficulties: you have to place yourself from the first
moment in the field of language and take it as the norm for
all other language manifestations. Indeed, among so many
dualities, language seems to be the only thing capable of
autonomous definition...

(Saussure 1916: 37).

We then have a point of view (the need to describe the systematic aspects of language)
that has created an object (language). The Saussurian conception of the speech circuit
is the basis of his “mentalistic” vision because it starts from an association that exists
in the brain (or in the mind) of individuals. Indeed, in the mind of the emitting subject,
an idea or concept with an acoustic image that corresponds to that idea.
Then the speaker, through the act of phonation, emits the sounds that are heard by
the receiving subject, for whom the process is reversed, since he associates the
acoustic image of sounds to a concept in his own brain. Then the process is repeated
and, obviously, whoever was a receiver can become a sender. Later, the difference
between sound proper and “acoustic image” is clarified. For the time being, it should
be noted that Saussure's position is mentalistic because he assumes that language is
located in the mind of all individuals. Thus, the object of study of linguistics is clearly
determined. The totality of the facts of language is left aside, and only what belongs to
the system of language, that is, language, is studied.
Saussure's position has been said to be mentalistic because it assumes that language
exists in each and every one of the members of the linguistic community. Here, there
seems to be a contradiction that in reality is not such if one analyzes the reasoning
carefully. Language is social because it transcends the individual and belongs to the
whole community, it exists in the speaking mass.
But it is not contradictory to affirm that it also has an individual character because It is
located in the brain or in the mind of people. What happens is that the language only
exists in the mind of the individual because of its relationship with the community, it is
not subjected to the will of the speakers. On the contrary, speech does vary from one
individual to another since it depends on the use in concrete situations. The table
below summarizes the fundamental characteristics of the object of study of linguistics,
language, and its counterpart, speech.

Página | 6 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

Table 1.1. Comparison of language and speech

LANGUAGE SPEECH
The essential, social part of language The purely individual part, and
therefore accessory, of language
A system passively registered in the A voluntary act of intelligence of a
minds of individuals speaking individual, who makes use of
the system in concrete situations.
A well-defined object in the context of On separating language from the
heterogeneous facts of language heterogeneous facts of language,
speech becomes precisely that
heterogeneous quality
An object that can be studied Due to its heterogeneity, it is not
separately due to its systematic nature. possible to define it as an object of
It is, in the end, the object of study of study.
linguistics.
Its character is homogeneous. It It is the use of the system, not the
constitutes a system of signs. system itself.
It is an object of the natural world that It is also an object of the natural world.
can be located in the brain.
It is social but is is found in each and It is individual but it is realized in
every one of the individuals. “social” speech interchanges.

1.2 LINGUISTICS AS A BRANCH OF SEMIOLOGY

After having grounded the object of the science of language, Saussure reflects on the
place that language occupies in social life. As "the language is a system of signs that
express ideas” (Saussure 1986: 43) it would be necessary to consider that linguistics is
one of the branches of the science of signs in general, that is, semiology (from the
Greek semeion, sign). In turn, semiology would be part of social psychology, and
consequently of general psychology. Saussure proposes that the laws discovered by
semiology should be applied to linguistics so that it finds a well-defined domain in the
set of human events.
It is not redundant to emphasize again the consciousness of linguistic reflection
manifested by the author of the Course, especially when we take into account that it is
himself who is laying the foundations of the new science. Saussure warns us that the

Página | 7 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

regulations (which according to him correspond to one of the prehistoric stages of the
science of language) only provides rules for separating what institutions consider
"correct ways" from "incorrect ways". Therefore, the regulations are "very far from
pure observation, and their point of view is necessarily narrow" (Saussure 1916: 29).
The comment has an essential value for teaching, since grammar is often confused with
the regulations. Linguistics is a science and, as such, it manifests a descriptive and
explanatory, but not prescriptive method. The science that studies language attempts
to say what the facts of language are like and, eventually, to say why they are like that.
A science does not claim to say how things should be. In this sense, an analogy can be
raised with the experimental sciences. No physicist would ever think of commanding
objects how they should behave. It is not "correct" or "wrong" for an iron bar to expand
due to heat. However, the teaching of the language has sometimes remained in that
first stage of the linguistic studies because it has been obsessively interested in
distinguishing the forms that "are good" from those that "are bad". That is why it is not
uncommon to hear comments about "how badly people speak in Argentina." This
problem is of vital importance for education. It is not meant to suggest that the
teaching of language has to foster any form of expression in the classroom context.
Such an attitude would have very negative results, but teachers should not forget the
theoretical differences that make it possible to explain what uses are appropriate
according to the communicative situation, the region or the social group.
1.3 THE LINGUISTIC SIGN
Linguistics is a branch of the general science of signs. Among other things, this means
that language (the object of study of linguistic science) is a system of signs.
Linguistic signs have features that clearly differentiate them from other types of signs.
A linguistic sign is defined as the mental combination of a concept and an acoustic
image (Saussure 1916: 92). In a figure:
Concept
__________________

Acoustic image
As Saussure defines mental objects, it must be understood that the "acoustic image" is
not the sound itself (physical and material) but the mental representation of sound.
For its part, the "concept" is nothing other than the meaning, or rather, the mental
representation of a meaning. The words of any language are signs. Signs are also the
forms with meaning that make up a word; for example, the word, gato is a linguistic

Página | 8 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

sign that is in turn composed of signs: the root of the word: gat-, the masculine form: -
o- and the ending indicating plural -s.

Root of the word meaning Noun

Concept: Domestic felines
domestic feline masculine

Acoustic
gatos gat- -o-
image:

In short, the linguistic sign is the psychic entity (i.e., mental) that can be represented,
didactically, by means of figures such as the previous ones.
It is important to note that the sign does not unite a name and a thing: the concept
constitutes the meaning, not the concrete referent.
To avoid possible ambiguities and to develop the terminology of this new science that
is linguistics, Saussure proposes to keep the word sign to designate the total union and
"replace acoustic concept and image respectively with signified and signifier" (Saussure
1916: 93). Now we have:

SIGNIFIER

SIGNIFIED

The concepts of signified and signifier seem to have the advantage of pointing out the
opposition that separates them. Indeed, the past participle signified suggests a concept
already given and the significant word (a present participle) suggests the process that
allows expressing that meaning.
1.3.1. The arbitrariness of the sign
The linguistic sign has an essential characteristic that is expressed through the "first
principle", called "the arbitrariness of the sign". Precisely, the sign is arbitrary because
the bond that unites the signified and the signifier is not motivated. The concept of cat
(i.e., domestic feline) is not bound by any relationship essential to the acoustic image
g-a-t-o. The best test to understand arbitrariness of signs is the existence of different
languages: the same concept or meaning (domestic feline) has as signifiers gato in
Spanish, chat in French, cat in English and katze in German. Although he avoids

Página | 9 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

technical terms, Borges explains this issue, which has interested writers and
philosophers for centuries in "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins."
All of us, at some time, have suffered those unappealable debates in
which a lady, with an abundance of interjections and grammatical
inconsistencies, swears the word luna is more (or less) expressive
than the word moon. Out of the obvious observation that the
monosyllable moon is perhaps more apt to represent a very simple
object than the word luna, nothing is possible to contribute to such
debates; if compound words and derivations are discounted, all
languages of the world (...) are equally inexpressive (Borges 1974:
706)
(Where Borges says inexpressive, we should understand arbitrary in
Saussure's terms).

It is no exaggeration to say that Ferdinand de Saussure's theory cannot be understood

without a clear understanding of the principle of arbitrariness of the sign. Nor does it
seem an exaggeration to say that the development of linguistic theories of the 20th
century cannot be understood without a general idea of the Saussurian model. The
principle of arbitrariness of the sign "dominates the entire linguistics of language; its
consequences are innumerable" (Saussure 1916: 93). One of the first consequences is
a pair of characteristics of the sign (mutability and immutability) that superficially seem
contradictory but are actually complementary (cf. 2.3 and 2.4). Another of these
consequences, essential for the development of linguistics, is the conventional nature
of the bond that unites the representation of meaning with the representation of
sounds through which those meanings are expressed. Indeed, language is a
semiological system (i.e., a system of signs) that is based on a collective habit.
It is evident that language is inherited and that the members of the community acquire
the language from that habit that has previously been acquired by others.
The linguistic sign is clearly arbitrary, and for this reason it differs from other signs. For
example, smoke is a sign of fire and in this case, there is a clear existential relationship
between smoke and what it means; therefore, smoke is an arbitrary sign. The red light
of the traffic light means that it is mandatory stop. It can be said that the relationship
between the red light and the obligation of stopping is arbitrary: in truth there are
other red lights than those of the traffic light and that they do not mean to stop and,
above all, there seems to be no apparent reason to link the color red with a road ban.
But despite its possible arbitrariness, the red of the traffic light is not a linguistic sign.
Nor does it not form part of a conventional system (the language) that exists in every
human community and defines us as a species. There are no human communities
Página | 10 | MODULE – UNIT 1
 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

without language, while, perhaps fortunately, there are communities that have
managed to survive without the benefits of traffic lights. Saussure emphasizes that it is
convenient to leave aside the word symbol to designate the linguistic sign or, more
precisely, to designate the signifier.
Indeed, the Spanish expression justicia is associated with an abstract concept of justice,
equity. The relationship between the signifier justice and the signified (abstraction,
value morality, fairness, etc.) is arbitrary. The image of the balance, however, is a
conventional symbol (a signifier) of that signified, because, just as the smoke is
existentially related to fire, the balance is associated (metaphorically) with the fairness
and precision that justice means. These examples may be helpful in concluding
definitively that the relationship between meaning and signifier of the linguistic sign is
unmotivated because between them, there is "no natural bond" (de Sausssure 1916:
94). They are also useful for demonstrating that, as other authors have interpreted, the
relationship between meaning and signifier can be extended to other semiological
systems.
In this sense, the eminent French semiologist Roland Barthes has developed a study on
non-linguistic sign systems. In the semiological system of cars it can be interpreted, for
example, that an expensive car (say, a Rolls Royce) means "wealth and/or fame" and
that an old car (say, a Siam Di Tella model 65) means "poverty". The two cars, the Rolls
and Di Tella, are signifiers of a different semiological system of language.
However, Barthes's conclusion differs from Saussure's: semiology is actually a
detachment from linguistics because it must be based on it to be able to develop their
models of interpretation of reality.
Finally, regarding the essential arbitrariness of the sign, Saussure rejects two possible
objections.
Objection 1: Onomatopoeias seem to be motivated expressions, and therefore, not
arbitrary. Indeed, words like meow reproduce a sound from the natural world. But
onomatopoeias are never central constituents of the linguistic system and in reality,
they are still an attempt to imitate a conventional and approximate sound in the real
world. (It is possible that a cat does not consider the expression meow to be a good
imitation of his meowing).
Objection 2: Something similar happens with exclamations. There doesn’t seem to
be a truly motivated link between ouch! and the pain that that exclamation means.

Página | 11 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

1.3.2. Linear character of the signifier

The second principle of the linguistic sign is as important as it is simple. Maybe because
it is so obvious it is sometimes difficult to understand. The signifier, for its auditory
nature, develops over time: a) it represents an extension, and b) that extension is
measurable in only one dimension; it is a line (Saussure 1916: 95).
The linearity of the signifier is also essential to distinguish the linguistic sign from other
types of signs. As opposed to visual signifiers (traffic lights, maritime signals), linguistic
signifiers only have their timeline; their elements are presented one after the other,
forming a chain. Writing (which is not language, but the representation of language)
confirms this idea because it also has a linear quality which is a direct consequence of
the linearity of the signifier. According to Saussure, writing makes the spatial
succession of graphic signs substitute and represent the sequence in time.
This conception of writing is very important because since the publication of the Course
it constitutes a heritage of linguistic theories. Although writing is precious goods of
humanity it is not an essential aspect of the language which, essentially, is orality.
1.3.3. Immutability of the sign
The linguistic sign is immutable (i.e., does not change) because the speakers of the
community do not choose it nor can they change it or replace it with another. In effect,
the speaking mass is tied to the language as it is and therefore the sign is outside the
language scope of our will: every society knows its language as a product inherited
from previous generations. In short, language is a social institution because speakers
inherit their language and then contribute to make it inherent to the following
generations.
This immutability of the sign is a consequence of four factors, among which the
principle of the arbitrary is highlighted.
1. The arbitrary character of the sign determines that the sign is also immutable.
Societies changes ways of dressing, laws and regimes of production, and sometimes
they have to assert their reasons. However, societies cannot (and do not need) to
impose changes in a system of arbitrary signs. What compelling social reason can there
be for preferring luna over moon?
2. The linguistic signs of a language add up to a number that is undoubtedly very high
and any general change would be an unnecessarily impossible task.

Página | 12 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

3. Language constitutes a very complex system that all speakers manipulate, whether
or not they are aware of it. Both an illiterate person and a great writer have inherited
and use the same language, although the latter has a high degree of awareness of its
management and the first does not.
4. All individuals in the community use the language and this causes a predictable
collective resistance to any linguistic innovation. If the signs were continually changed
there would be no way for the community to make use of them.
Of all social institutions, language is the least prone to initiatives. The language forms
a body with the life of the social mass, and the mass, being naturally inert, appears
above all as a conservation factor (Saussure 1916: 99)
It has been said that, based on arbitrariness, Saussure raises concepts which are only
apparently contradictory. The sign is immutable in relation with the society that has
inherited it. "We say man and dog because before we have said man and dog"
(Saussure 1916: 100). But when the role of social forces is analyzed in relation to time,
it is noted that language, and the signs that make it up, are also mutable. To this aspect
we will refer in the next paragraph.
1.3.4. Mutability of the sign
Perhaps the best example of Saussure's dialectical thought is the tension between
mutability and immutability of the sign. It does not seem risky to affirm this if by
dialectic we understand the posing of oppositions in which each term is defined (at
least in part) in terms of its opposite. Indeed, for Saussure, time has two contradictory
or complementary effects on the structure of language:
1. time ensures the continuity of language through successive generations;
2. time alters the structure of the system because it makes the signs linguistics change.
The arbitrariness of the sign has as a consequence not only immutability but also
mutability. It is a proven fact that languages (the signs that constitute them) change
over time.
Written documents (and, for centuries to come, recordings of audio and video) testify
and will testify to the change of language throughout time. A thousand years of
linguistic change have been enough "to alter the physiognomy of Spanish in such a
radical way that if a 10th-century Spaniard and an American or Spanish of the 20th
century met face to face, they could not understand each other" (Hockett 1958: 355).

Página | 13 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

As a simple example, one can reproduce this fragment of Spanish from the 10th
century.
Conoajutorio de nuestro dueno, dueno Christo,
dueno Salbatore, qual dueno get era honore,
qual dueno tienet ela mandatjone cono Patre,
cono Spiritu Sancto, eno sieculos delosieculos.
Facanos Deus omnipotes tan serbitjo fere ke
denante ela sua
face grandioso segamus. Amem.
(Emilian glosses, mid-10th century).
(From Hockett 1958: 354).

Beyond the orthographic conventions, it is possible to notice that the signifier sieculos
(whose meaning is a span of one hundred years) has changed while the meaning has
remained stable. This displacement of relationship between signifier and signified is a
clear consequence of the arbitrariness of the sign since, because of this arbitrariness,
there is also no reason to assert that the signifier sieculos must not change in order to
become or give rise to the significant centuries.
In other cases, it may happen that the meaning changes while the form of the signifier
is maintained. It seems that this is what is happening with the Spanish expression
frívolo, which for many people means cold, little expressive, and not superficial. (In this
sense, it is common to hear statements such as “People from the south of Argentina
are more frivolous than those from the north”, where the speaker means “less
expressive” or “more circumspect”). The truth is in both cases (change of the signifier
and change of the signified) there is a change of sign because the change of one part
affects the whole. In short, time alters all things and there is no reason why language
escapes this universal truth. The tension between the ideas of mutability and
immutability allow Saussure to establish a series of valuable conclusions.
1. The total phenomenon of speaking involves two factors: language and speech.
Language (i.e., speaking minus speech) is the set of linguistics habits acquired by the
speakers that allows them to understand and become understood.
2. Language exists as such because there is a speaking mass that handles it. As a
semiological system, language constitutes a social phenomenon.
3. Social force is combined with the action of time. From this combination arises the
inevitable linguistic change.

Página | 14 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

1.4 LINGUISTIC VALUE

1.4.1. ideas and sounds
In a concrete way, language articulates sounds with ideas. The sound sequence It rains
only has meaning or linguistic existence because it expresses a thought.
Here it is essential to understand that thought and sounds have no existence
independent of each other. It happens that language is thought organized in the phonic
matter (sounds). According to Saussure, language does not create a phonic medium for
thought but "serves as an intermediary between thought and sound" (1916: 137).
Language (without which thought is impossible) is the domain of articulations: ... an
idea is fixed in a sound and ...a sound becomes a sign of an idea (Saussure 1916: 137).
Language manifests a fascinating character because, from substances, from "concrete
things" such as sounds and ideas, it manages to create forms. Indeed, the combination
of the two realities of sound and ideas produces a form, not a concrete substance or
thing. Precisely, linguistic signs are forms.
In this context, the arbitrary nature of the sign allows the social fact to create a
language system. The speaking community establishes the values of the signs, i.e., the
relations between signs and the relations between meaning and significant. Here, value
of the sign means that the sign is defined as such from its relationship with other signs.
The speaking community assigns values to the signs, which means that the signs are
not individually defined, but in terms of the system they integrate.
1.4.2. Conceptual aspect of value
The notion of value helps refine the definition of language. Indeed, language is a system
in which all terms are solidary and in which the value of each term is the result of the
presence of the others.
The concept of value finds its origin in Economics. That is why it is said that values are
always constituted by a different thing that can be exchanged for something else,
whose value will be determined, and for similar things whose value also remains to be
seen. For example, the value of a fifty cent coin is constituted by a litre of milk, since
one can change a 50 cent coin for a carton. You can also compare the value of the 50
cents with the values of other currencies. Similarly, a word can be exchanged for
something else like an idea and can be compared to something similar as another word.

Página | 15 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

To illustrate the scope of value, Saussure resorts to examples such as those it is shown
in table 1.2.
Table 1.2. relations of value and meaning in the English words fish and Spanish pez
and pescado
Spanish English Meaning
pez fish Animal, preferably alive
pescado Food

The Spanish word pez and the English word fish have the same meaning because both
signifiers refer to the same signified. However, pez and fish have different value
because pez is accompanied by the word pescado. The significance is the internal
relationship between signified and signifier and can be equivalent from one language
to another. The same does not happen with value, because in the system the value of
each sign is determined by its surroundings.
What has been exemplified with isolated words applies perfectly to other terms of the
system. The value relationships are essential for understanding the classes of words in
a language: the class adjective is defined based on the noun class, and vice versa. In
the same way, the noun class somehow presupposes the verb class as well as verb
presupposes a noun. Value relationships are relevant also on a morphological level. For
example, the value of the plural in Spanish does not coincide with that of plural in
classical Greek, a language that has what Spanish speakers we would interpret as “two
plurals”. In that language, there is the dual number for expressions like my hands, my
ears, my eyes. In Spanish there is the opposition singular – plural, while in classical
Greek there is a system of three numbers composed of singular, dual and plural. In the
same way, value relationships are variables within the same language. For example, it
can be stated that doing and performing are (partially) synonyms because they have
"the same meaning". In effect, we say do homework or perform the task (even if
performing "sounds" more formal). However, they do not have the same value
because, for example, we say to make a cake but not perform a cake. The union
between signified and signifier constitutes the signification of the sign. But the
significance finds meaning because it is inserted into a value system.
The meaning of each sign is linked to other meanings and from there arises value,
where the essence and breadth of the linguistic fact resides.

Página | 16 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

1.4.3. The sign as a whole

All of the above allows us to conclude that in language there are only negative
differences. Indeed, structuralism proposes a fundamental methodological novelty:
the linguist will analyze the system from the oppositional relations and negative, not
affirmative definitions. Each element is what the others are not. As exemplified above,
the class "noun" cannot be defined in itself but as a function of the other classes of
words.
Whether the signifier or the signified is considered, language
involves neither ideas nor pre-existing sounds to the linguistic
system, but only conceptual differences and phonic
differences resulting from that system. Whatever there is of
idea or of phonic matter in a sign matters less than what is
around it in the other signs (Saussure 1916: 144).

It should be remembered that, despite this predominance of the negative, the link
between the signified and the signifier is positive because society maintains the
parallelism between these two orders. This positive trait does not affect the negative
relationships that value imposes.
In summary, the concept of value allows us to notice that in all parts of language there
is a complex balance of terms that are conditioned reciprocally. For this reason,
"language is a form and not a substance" (Saussure 1916: 146).
1.5 SYNTAGMATIC AND ASSOCIATIVE RELATIONS
Saussure's argument is internally sound. Every topic he proposes is the reasonable
consequence of a previous development. First of all, he highlights that the history of
language studies has not yet come up with an approach that allows you to cut out your
object of study. To solve this problem, he opts for the language to the detriment of the
unpredictable variability of speech. As he states that the language is a system and a
principle of classification in itself, he must account for the units that make up that
system and then characterizes the sign. Of the arbitrariness of the sign emerge, in a
complementary and simultaneous way, mutability and immutability, which allows
Saussure to realize that in language there is another basic opposition: diachrony and
synchrony. The systematic character of language is sustained by value relations.
After he has developed this argument and established that in language there are only
relations, Saussure wonders how these relations work. The relationships and
differences between terms of the system unfold in two different spheres, each
generating an order of values. On the one hand, in speech, the words are chained in a

Página | 17 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

sequence. This phenomenon is based on the linear character of the signifier and of
language (cf. Section 2.2.). Language allows the elements to line up one after the other
in the speech chain. These strings are called syntagms or phrases and are always made
up of two or more consecutive units.
Table 1.3. Examples of SYNTAGMS

Syntagm Immediate consecutive units

reread Re (prefix) -le (stem) -e (conjugation vowel) –r (infinitive ending)

against all against – all (words of the prepositional phrase)

human life Human - life - (words of the noun phrase)

God is just God - is just (subject / predicate)

if it's good weather, we will go out If the weather is nice – we will go out (sentence modifier/sentence)

On the other hand, outside of discourse and beyond the present chain, signs are
associated in the memory of the speakers and in the collective memory. Thus, the word
teaching "will unconsciously bring up in the spirit a lot of other words" (Saussure 1916:
147): to teach, I teach, etc., or temperance, hope, etc., or education, learning, etc. These
associations are not based on the chain but, as its name indicates, on mental
associations: nor are they something other than the associative relations of language.
How these associations are made departing from the model (paradigm) of the
language are also called paradigmatic relationships. “The syntagmatic connection is in
praesentia; it rests on two or more equally present terms... On the contrary, the
associative connection unites terms in absentia...” (Saussure 1916: 148).
Saussure recognizes that the syntagm occupies a crucial place because it is very close
to speech (which is not the object of study of linguistics). The sytagm is the result of
the freedom of combinations and it is the system of language that makes it possible.
The ultimate syntagm is the sentence, and this marks the entrance door to the domain
of speech. It must be taken into account that, beyond the infinite quantity of sentences
(the infinite number of syntagms) that speakers can produce, language provides the
regular forms to build the syntagms. Saussure does not come to explicitly speaking of
grammatical rules that exist in the minds of the speakers. But he does emphasize that
the system provides syntagmatic models from which speakers produce their own in
concrete speech situations. In conclusion, the syntagm (in its conceptual aspect) is at
the same time a fact of language and a fact of speech. For the first reason it constitutes
a unit of study for linguistics.

Página | 18 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

Associative relations allow to establish, practically, all kinds of links. The word teaching
can appear in any syntagm as Teaching will save our country. And it can relate to a
varied series of signs from different criteria, as shown in table 1.4.
Table 1.4. Examples of paradigmatic (associative) relationships established from the
word teaching
TEACHING
Criterion by Lexical root Synonyms and -ING Rhyme Personal

which the association is set context-related form associations

words (collocation)

Associated words Teach learning swimming billing boring

Teaches education reading drilling job

Teacher chalk writing filling school

In short, the entire language is a model (paradigm) available to speakers. A word, the
component form of a word as the ending -ing, the acoustic image, etc. can always
evoke everything that is susceptible to be associated with it in one way or another.
While a phrase is related in an obligatory way with the ideas of order, fixed number
and succession, the terms of a paradigmatic link are not (necessarily) presented in a
pre-determined order or in a defined number.
2. PEIRCE AND THE TRIADIC SIGN
The semiotics of the eminent North American intellectual Charles Sanders Peirce is
based on what can be defined as a categorical analysis of the being: All signs arise from
an analysis that conceives of things as grounded in three modes of being: firstness,
secondness and thirdness. According to Peirce's conception, all things in the universe
can be interpreted as signs. In other words, everything that we are capable of
representing to ourselves is some kind of sign.
With respect to the aforementioned categorical analysis, the following distinctions can
be made:
1. Firstness refers to the qualities, to the sensations, to the qualitative possibilities, to
mere appearances, without any reference to anything else. It can be said that the
firstness is the realm of feeling or sensation.

Página | 19 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

2. Secondness involves (as its name suggests) the contact of two. There is something
acting on something else. It can be said that secondness is the realm of reaction.
3. Thirdness is the consolidation of the two previous levels in something that is
consolidated as a habit, convention or law. It can be asserted that thirdness is the realm
of thought.
Each of the three instances of the Peircian sign (each of the three correlates) will in
turn be divided into three trichotomies, because they constitute three ways of
representing both the sign, the object and the interpretant, depending on whether it
is a quality, a fact, or a law. Note that feeling, reaction and thought define states of
mind on which Peirce’s philosophy stands.
For Peirce, "logic" is simply another name for semiotics, the formal ("quasi-necessary")
doctrine of signs. "The art of reasoning," says Peirce, "is the art of ordering signs, and
of finding the truth."
The definition of a sign is well known: "A sign, or representamen, is something that, for
someone, represents or refers to something in some aspect or character” (228)

REPRESENTAMEN (Signification, way of representation, i.e, “red light”)

OBJECT (Concret object, mental object, i.e. “car halting) INTERPRETANT (Signified, meaning for
someone, i. e. “red light meaning to stop”)

Note that there are three well-differentiated elements in the definition:

*The representamen or sign itself.
*What the sign refers to: the object.
*The system of knowledge of the person who interprets that the sign or
representamen in question refers to an object: the interpretant.
The table below provides just five examples. Let us insist on the following: there is not
one thing that cannot be a sign, since each individual is an interpretant capable of

Página | 20 | MODULE – UNIT 1

 LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS

assigning meaning to practically anything. Therefore, the possible examples are

limitless.
Table 1: Examples of the triadic sign

REPRESENTAMEN (First) OBJECT (Second) INTERPRETANT (Third) Comments

The red light of traffic The order to stop / halt A driver comes to the The red light could be a
lights intersection where the mystery (or the sign for
traffic lights are. something else) for an
Amazonian aborigin
The grass is flat in some Indication of a horse A country worker who The marks on the grass
spots having passed through can distinguish the horse may go unnoticed to
the area tracks some from the city
The sign LADIES on the The information that Someone on a shopping The sign might not be
door of a restroom that is the entrance to mall understood by someone
the ladies’ bathroom who speaks a different
language or someone
who’s illiterate.
Smoke in the sky The information that A Sioux native (American The smoke could be a
there are bisons in the tribe) mystery (or the sign of
river something else) for a
London engineer.
A baby crying The baby has awoken The baby’s mother For a neighbor, there
and is hungry may be no difference
with a cat screaming

Página | 21 | MODULE – UNIT 1