Semiotic Theory -Peirce
Peirce's basic claim is that signs consist
of three inter-related parts: a sign, an object, and an interpretant. For the
sake of simplicity, we can think of the sign as the signifier, for example, a
written word, an utterance, smoke as a sign for fire etc. The object, on the
other hand, is best thought of as whatever is signified, for example, the
object to which the written or uttered word attaches, or the fire signified by
the smoke. The interpretant, the most innovative and distinctive feature of
Peirce's account, is best thought of as the understanding that we have of the
sign/object relation. The importance of the interpretant for Peirce is that
signification is not a simple dyadic relationship between sign and object: a
sign signifies only in being interpreted. This makes the interpretant central
to the content of the sign, in that, the meaning of a sign is manifest in the
interpretation that it generates in sign users. Things are, however, slightly
more complex than this and we shall look at these three elements in more
detail.
Peirce's idea that a sign does not signify in all respects
and has some particular signifying element is perhaps best made clear with an
example. For example, a molehill in my lawn taken as a sign of moles. Not every
characteristic of the molehill plays a part in signifying the presence of
moles. The colour of the molehill plays a secondary role since it will vary
according to the soil from which it is composed. Similarly, the sizes of
molehills vary according to the size of the mole that makes them; so again,
this feature is not primary in the molehill's ability to signify. What is
central here is the causal connection that exists between the type of mound in
my lawn and moles: since moles make molehills, molehills signify moles.
Consequently, primary to the molehill's ability to signify the mole is the
brute physical connection between it and a mole. This is the sign-vehicle of
the sign. For Peirce, then, it is only some element of a sign that enables it
to signify its object, and when speaking of the signifying element of the sign,
or rather, the sign-vehicle, it is this qualified sign that he means.
Just as with the sign, not every characteristic of the object
is relevant to signification: only certain features of an object enable a sign
to signify it. For Peirce, the relationship between the object of a sign and
the sign that represents it is one of determination: the object determines the
sign. The idea is that the object imposes certain parameters that a sign must
fall within if it is to represent that object. However, only certain
characteristics of an object are relevant to this process of determination.
The interpretant provides a translation of the sign, allowing
us a more complex understanding of the sign's object. Second, just as
with the sign/object relation, Peirce believes the sign/interpretant relation
to be one of determination: the sign determines an interpretant.