Author: Kristi Mukk

Semiotics involves “anything that can stand for something else” (Griffin, 2012, p. 332). Semiotics as a theoretical tool reflects the oscillation between written word and visual culture, linguistic and non-linguistic, the verbal and nonverbal. Semiotics is defined as “the study of signs and symbols as elements of communicative behavior” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2019), but its origins point to medical science and the interpretation of medical symptoms. John Locke first used the term semiotics for a “doctrine of signs” in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Contemporary usage of the term “semiotics” refers to the American and European traditions concerning theories about the social production of sign systems and how meaning is constructed and interpreted. In the discipline of rhetoric, knowledge of semiotics is necessary to understand different ways of meaning-making and methods of persuasion, and communication studies utilizes a semiotic framework to understand how the use of signs and symbols varies across different cultures and contexts and affects how messages are exchanged and interpreted. Three key thinkers of the semiotic tradition are Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, and French literary critic and semiologist Roland Barthes. Semiotics has had important contributions across various other disciplines such as philosophy, anthropology, psychology, sociology, literature, film, cultural studies, marketing, computer science, music, and life sciences.

Saussure visualized a sign as the relationship between the signifier and the signified, in which the signifier is the physical form of the sign as perceived through the senses, and the signified is the meaning generated in the mind of the interpreter. He visualized a sign as a piece of paper with writing on both sides, the paper being the sign with the signifier on one side and the signified on the other. The signifier and the signified cannot be separated. While Saussure was developing his dyadic model, Peirce was independently developing his triadic model of the sign consisting of the object, the representamen, and the interpretant. The object is what the sign refers to, whether that be a physical object, action, or idea. The representamen is similar to Saussure’s signifier as it is the form that the sign takes, and the interpretant is similar to Saussure’s signified mental concept of the sign made by the interpreter’s mind (Chandler, 2007).

Saussure’s primary concern was with the realm of linguistics and thinking of spoken and written words as signs. Barthes extended Saussure’s dyadic conception of the sign to include visual images and considered the relation of nonverbal signifiers to their signifieds as having a natural affinity to each other. Peirce’s triadic model includes both verbal and nonverbal signs, and he classifies three different kinds of signs. Symbolic signs have an arbitrary association to the objects to which they refer as they bear no resemblance and are acquired within a cultural context. Examples include mathematical symbols and the red light of a traffic symbol. Iconic signs resemble the objects they portray whether they look, sound, taste, fell, or smell similarly to their referents. Examples include metaphors, onomatopoeic words, and pictures.  Indexical signs are signs where the signifier and the signified are linked by cause and effect or are directly connected spatially or temporally such as smoke as a sign of fire or a fever as a sign of illness (Peirce, 1992).


One example of how signifiers can have different meanings depending on history, context, culture, and positionality is Signifyin(g) in black rhetoric. In Henry Louis Gates’ “The Signifying Monkey” (1989), he defines Signifyin(g) as different from signifying because it is a master trope of black rhetoric that turns away from literal meaning and is double-voiced. To be double-voiced is to use language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meanings of words, often for playful or deceptive misdirection. Gates shows an alternative to the formulation of signifier/signified in standard white English, and shows how context matters in meaning-making. 

According to Barthes’ theory, every ideological sign is a result of the relationship between a denotative sign system and a connotative sign system. A denotative sign system is strictly descriptive and lacks ideological content, while a connotative sign system loses its historical grounding or cultural past by becoming a myth that is seemingly straightforward, but subtly communicates ideological meaning and perpetuates the status quo and dominant values of culture. For Barthes, signs can be deceptive if their mythic systems are not exposed or deconstructed as myths become naturalized in a culture (Barthes, 1972). The recent proliferation of racist symbols that are suggestive of blackface in luxury fashion products such as Gucci’s ski mask and Prada’s keychain illustrate the dangers of a connotative sign system losing its historical grounding and cultural context. It has become a mythic sign that is deceptive because it communicates ideologies and stereotypes, but has become so naturalized in American culture that these fashion houses did not recognize its racist connotative meaning and the history of blackface minstrelsy in America.

Especially in the current era of electronic media and mass communication, signs gain cultural power when ideologies are subtly communicated to naive consumers of images in a capitalist system. In “Rhetoric of the Image,” Barthes (1977) explores how commercials are a convenient medium to explore how ideologies are reflected in highly condensed visual images. The Italian luxury fashion brand Dolce & Gabbana was recently implicated in a controversy over a series of promotional videos created for Chinese consumers in which an Asian model struggles to eat Italian food with chopsticks. 

Stereotypical Chinese folk music plays in the background, and a voiceover incorrectly pronounces “Dolce & Gabbana” on purpose to mock the Chinese accent. A male voice then proceeds to explain how to “properly” eat the Italian dishes. In an era of globalization and international advertising, brands have to be literate in cultural sign systems and how mythic signs and stereotypes that have become naturalized in one culture are interpreted differently in other cultures. The marketing team thought it was creating a “humorous” or “playful” video, but it was perceived by its Chinese audience as racist.  

In the rhetorical tradition, Kenneth Burke defines man as a “symbol-using, symbol-making, symbol-misusing animal” (Burke, 1966, p. 16). Symbols are what define us as humans, and we are driven by a desire to make meaning. Burke’s definition of man emphasizes how man is distinct from other creatures because of his ability to communicate using symbols and language towards productive ends such as persuasion or to strategically induce cooperation and unity. For Burke, language functions as symbolic action or symbolic inducement. But with this power to use symbols, man can also make and misuse symbols. Feminist scholarship has redefined Burke’s definition of man in order to derive a definition of woman as “the symbol-receiving animal” (Condit, 1992). This illustrates how symbols are central to identity and social belonging as those who have the power to make symbols can oppress others. The use of language to name, classify, and order things is not a neutral process, and symbols can affect how we interpret events and processes.

Burke’s concept of terministic screens describes how symbols affect our understanding of reality as “any nomenclature necessarily directs the attention into some channels rather than others” (Burke, 1966) by reflecting or deflecting our attention in different ways depending on how the terministic screen filters our attention. In particular, the media has a powerful role in filtering our attention and understanding of reality. For example, the racial bias in news media reporting of white riots and black protests is reflected in the use of coded language. Black protestors are described as “bad guys, animals, and thugs,” while white rioters are just “young people” who are “passionate” and “a little out of control.” The media describes white riots as “disputes, altercations, or brawls” instead of a riot or protest. The differing coverage reflects and amplifies black stereotypes in society.

Similarly to Burke, George Herbert Mead claimed that language is essential to the construction of social reality and conceptions of the self, and the human capacity for language and the interpretation of symbols is what distinguishes man from animals. Although Mead died before he could put forth his ideas in a book, his ideas were published in Mind, Self, and Society which was published in his name by Herbert Blumer, who coined the term symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969). Symbolic interactionism is “the ongoing use of language and gestures in anticipation of how the other will react; a conversation” (Griffin, 2012, p. 54). Symbolic interactionism rests on the premise that interpretation matters because humans react based on the meanings they assign to people or things, and that meaning arises out of social interactions between people. This meaning is constantly negotiated through language as meaning is not inherent in objects or pre-existent in nature. In this perspective, a symbol is “a stimulus that has a learned meaning and value for people” (Hall, 1980, p. 50). Symbols are arbitrary signs, and it is only through conversations and social interactions that meaning develops and we learn how to interpret the world.

However, Mead also recognized the role of the individual in the interpretation of symbols. Minding is the inner dialogue or self-talk of individuals as they mentally “test alternatives, rehearse actions, and anticipate reactions before responding” (Griffin, 2012, p. 58). This process also includes taking the role of the other or mentally putting yourself in the place of someone else who is viewing you and considering how you look to another person and how they might react to you—this is the looking-glass self, the mental image that emerges when you take the role of the other to examine yourself. For symbolic interactionists, “the self is a function of language. Without talk there would be no self-concept” (Griffin, 2012, p. 60). The self is always in flux because the self develops through interactions with others. 

As rhetoric and communication scholarship shifts its focus from primarily associating semiotics with text and language to visual and nonverbal culture, it is important to recognize different methods of meaning-making and how the use of signs and symbols varies over time and across different cultures and contexts. Cultural and feminist critiques of semiotics bring attention to the power of those who can make symbols and how the use of symbols can be an act of resistance. In this digital era, signs and symbols proliferate in our everyday lives. In a globalized capitalist system, there is a greater need for a critical eye of ideological sign systems and how these systems protect dominant values and the status quo. Studying semiotics is of the utmost importance because the signs and symbols that we use define our sense of self and our construction of reality, and they are also crucial to persuasion, cooperation, resistance, and unity.

Works Cited