Redefining Sign/Symbol and Semiotics
Why should we invest so much effort in redefining the term sign? One reason is that its Chinese counterpart Fuhao is abused to an intolerable extent in daily usage of the Chinese language today.
- PDF / 182,637 Bytes
- 12 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 30 Downloads / 202 Views
Redefining Sign/Symbol and Semiotics
1.1 What Is a Sign? Why should we invest so much effort in redefining the term sign? One reason is that its Chinese counterpart Fuhao is abused to an intolerable extent in daily usage of the Chinese language today. We often see sentences such as, “This has only the significance of a sign” (implying “no viable meaning”); “Simple GDP ranking is only a sign” (implying “no substance”); “She has not the sign of an artist” (implying that “she keeps a low profile and works diligently”); or “For them, Confucius has become a sign” (implying “an empty icon”). Even well-educated people use sign in this manner and if we do not make diligent efforts to contain this popular misuse, sign is in danger of becoming synonymous with “insignificance,” and semiotics with “drawing-room chitchat.” The misuse in Chinese can partly be blamed on the lack of a clear definition of the term sign in Western languages, to which the modern Chinese word Fuhao is the counterpart. In Euro-American semiotics circles (where the modern discipline of semiotics has been firmly founded), the definition of sign has remained very much the same as its traditional definition established in classical times, that is, “Aliquid stat pro aliquo,” as attributed to St. Augustine. Although in the twentieth century, semiotics was rapidly developed by generations of scholars into a sophisticated discipline to the degree that it is often nicknamed “the Math of Cultural Studies,” the definition of sign has remained unchanged. The irony is that though semioticians have been working hard to redefine terms such as culture, ideology, value, intention, cognition, et cetera, as each of these terms suffers from too many definitions, the time-honored basic term remains unchallenged. Neither of the two founders of the discipline of semiotics, Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles Sanders Peirce, felt uneasy about this millennia-old definition. Saussure sticks to the old phrasing “something standing for something else” (Saussure 1916), while Peirce attempts to expand the definition in saying that “A sign … is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity” (Peirce 1931– 1958, 2–228), a definition that, in fact, adds only a receptive dimension to the original © Foreign Language Teaching and Research Publishing Co., Ltd 2020 Y. Zhao, The River Fans Out, China Academic Library, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7724-6_1
3
4
1 Redefining Sign/Symbol and Semiotics
definition. We may call this the substitutional theory of sign. Its shortcomings are obvious and manifold, as this theory cannot explain why human beings cannot exist at all without substitution. Somehow, semioticians today try their best not to touch the definition despite some finding it inadequate. Denial Chandler’s Semiotics, the Basics has been widely used as an introductory textbook for beginners. After a lengthy discussion on the lack of a clear definition of sign, Chandler simply gives up: “Assuming that you are not one of those annoying people who k
Data Loading...
