idi

SEMIOTICS

Mapping Semiosis

Inquiry is inherent for the process of thoughtful, mindful design right action. To enquire means to question, or to practice discernment and ask about the presence and appearance of things, and the conditions that make them so. From that enquiry follows inquiry—which means to go further and deeper into the questions, to go beneath the surface of things. When enquiry and inquiry arise from a sincere interest to know and to expand awareness, it broadens our perception of things and offers a better understanding of relational factors.

Moreover, inquiry also teaches us to view things in relationship, i.e., holistically rather than as isolated phenomena; dynamically rather than statistically. Therefore I consider this approach to action of absolute importance to design as an activity in service to society, and for those who profess themselves as communication experts.

The relationship of self and the world around us, this forming of relationships to otherness, is generalized as the relationship between the knower and the “known”. The known we accumulate becomes “knowledge.”

I also spoke of our experiences with these relationships, being mediated by the mind, as well, of course, the antennae of our senses. The accumulated knowledge is based on our feelings and perceptions.

According to Charles Sanders Peirce perception contributes something to knowledge; intrudes, and compels acknowledgment; exerts a force on the perceiver; and is the result of an internal synthesis (which is the starting point of critical thinking).

That last statement reveals the fact that perception is a process which is based on the law or principle of cause and effect—which is the key to understanding semiotics.

When I took a ferry boat to an island in Maine I tried to identify my feelings and interpretations of this object I was in: the ferry boat and all that was part of this. I took pictures to identify with what I saw. On the subsequent day I reflected on that experience and used the pictures to stimulate that experience. Here are the images and notes I made. This exercise clearly revealed to me that perception is a process based on the principle of cause and effect—which is also the key to understanding semiotics.

All these intakes formulate our responses to things which in turn affect and color other relationships. The point I want to make is that meaning is all about relationships.

We tend to label things quickly and think we know what the so-called “other” is. But meaning to each of us depends a great deal on who we are and what we are, and especially our capacities to interpret, and our capacity to process what is cognized (illustrated so well in this cartoon). This clearly creates problems in communication.

On the surface communication is simple. . . as Saul Steinberg illustrates here. This illustration is very much based on the so-called Shannon-Weaver model for communication, which is still with us today. This model identified some important components including the sender and receiver, the channel as the vehicle for communication, and also that idea of “noise”. . . (noise being appropriate for the telephone system, but also useful for it’s generalized potential).

But, interpretation and communication reflect a more complicated process of perception being based cause and effect. And that becomes more evident when we translate this model into a semiotic communication model based on a repertory of performance of “signs” (which identifies “noise” as one example of sign).

So what is a sign?

A sign is anything we perceive and take in, be it a thing, or quality or event simply identified as that “otherness” like: this white dot as a possible symbol for peace, or flowers as a sign of affection, or animal tracks, or a gesture like thumbs-up; or an empty store as a sign of an economic recession, etc. etc.

But does a red dot have the same meaning compared to the white dot?

Or does the meaning of the red dot change when situated on a white field? Or if its scale changed? Or if we see it framed in a rectangle?

As you can see in these various relationships, meaning has changed for each red dot. BUT, what changed was our perception of it due to patterns of relationships—while the red dot itself never changed! This demonstrates a so-called “sign” phenomenon as a mental construction not limited as a particular thing or part. Still, what exactly is a sign?

Moreover, to even cognize anything takes time to process the mediation for a variety of aspects — for example, to recognize something familiar, like the color red, or circle, which in itself is the formulation of a sign (red, or “circle”) — each in itself to bring up other signs . . . and always “signs” because they exist as ideas, which mediate other ideas, dynamically, because they change as we process them internally.

So we note that when things change externally (objects to objects) this modifies relationships and consequently meaning. Which reflects nature’s basic law of CAUSE AND EFFECT . . .
And understand that a cause it always the effect from some other cause, and so on.

The change goes both ways; i.e., change the red dot, even only its color, then its relationship to context changes meaning.

Or change SHAPE then, of course, meaning changes everything again.

Sometimes labels are puzzling ... This is exemplified by the story of a young child finding a beautiful plant in the middle of grass, and bringing this excitedly to his teacher, and she said "yes, that's a dandelion"! Two days later the child finds another interesting plant in the grass and goes to his teacher who says "Yes, that's a dandelion"! Then some days later there is a new plant that catches his eyes, and he brings it to the teacher who said again "Yes, that's a dandelion" —and this child is by now bewildered with the same word for three totally different object—and she finally explains that this is the same plant but in three developing stage of growth in its living process that each appears quite different.

Of course, the fact is that a dandelion is not so much a “ thing” as in a single object but reflects a process! And in any process CHANGE is the fact of life.

But we have trained ourselves to perceive objects, to focus on thingness, to label everything, and thereby fixate them as such rather than view them as patterns of relationships in a web of relationships. This reflects the changing paradigm Fritjof Capra wrote about in his book The Web of Life—from a quantum physics perspective . . . or as Capra called it a figure-ground shift from "objects" to "relationships." And this shift from objects to relationships happens to also be the fundamental principle of semiotics.

Semiotics is the theory of signs—which is both a philosophy and a science. The study of signs form a discipline called “semiotics” which is often attributed to the Greeks (since the Greek word “sema” means “sign”) yet the nature of “semiotics” as the science of knowing has been at least as old as the Indian philosophical tradition from some 4,000 years ago. Moreover, semiotics deals with questions concerning meaning, cognition, reference, truth, and reality.

Semiotics has held a special fascination for linguists because of the abstract nature of words in verbal communication. This chart analyzed the connections among these theorists like Peirce, Saussure, Roman Jackobson, Susan Langer, Louise Hjelmsjev, Greimas, Roland Barthes, Julia Kristeva, Umberto Eco, Derrida.

Because some of you have been introduced to semiotics in other courses I want to point out two main schools of interests. One represents Ferdinand de Saussure, the influential Swiss linguist who took a strong interest in semiotics and declared that semiology (as he named it) “as a science that studies the life of signs within society is conceivable.” But note that he was a linguist, and primarily interested in words and the vocalizing of word sounds—not in a broader scope of signs of a different type—like images.

Charles Sanders Peirce, a philosopher, mathematician, and known for his formulation of pragmatism, had a different view of his interest in sign naming it semiotic.

Interesting to see how these two, having quite different backgrounds to nurture their theories, happen to live at the same time, but did not know other.

Saussure understood a sign as an arbitrary correlation between signifier and signified. This is a dyadic relationship of two parts, or a sign is anything that stands for something else. When we look at this a bit closer we soon realize that this works for the linguistic system, with words being relative to other words, but not for anything else. Yet perhaps not even in that sense, for example when Lewis Caroll writes what Humpty Dumpty said in a scornful tone, “When I use a word, it’s just what I choose it to mean—neither more or less.” And we also saw that with the dandelion example. In other words, the dyadic system is much too simplistic when it comes to the logic of relationships in reference a broader idea of “sign.”

Here is a design product: a RISD poster that promotes graduate studies at RISD. To view this product semiotically as a sign, and how it situates as a vehicle for communication in the Shannon-Weaver communication model this designed product is a quickly assumed to be a “poster” (even at this stage being "co pared" to things of that sort—posters). In the the Shannon-Weaver communication model we know that the poster is a "channel" for a message a certain sender wanted to send to a certain receiver.

The receiver of its message is, then, the one who reads that poster—with the hope to stimulate interest for the receiver to act upon and apply to RISD. That recipient is the user of that poster.

Somewhere in this schematic the designer is one who created the poster in service of a client, but also with the user in mind along with where the poster is to function. To situate the “designer” in this relationship, the designer will hopefully take a relatively “objective” relational position, being part of all, yet intimate in that relationship as well.

While Saussure was purely interested in linguistic signs and the dyadic relationships, Peirce had an inclusive understanding of semiotics based on the principle of cause and effect. It is for that reason that Peirce's semiotics becomes a practical means to inquire into the relational complexities of design.

In the example above shows an interest in information architecture wherein the same information is presented graphically but is influenced significantly by varying Interpretant factors.

If ecology drives the need for communication then the information architecture might offer certain imaging. Results may not be very interesting as it lacks a certain human quality. So we can bring that human quality in from the ideas of human emotions with an image in the back that suggest a human being not paying attention to the environment and ecology from being preoccupied with self-serving needs of hunger and other interests.

Then, after understanding more of the idea of emotion that can add quality via a different expression of parts, whatever that might be, by adding red dots, balloons, angles to give a sense of “motion”, actions, etc. But the question arrises: when does the design for expressive aspects become too dominant and even make the information as its communication objective become lost?

To learn more see Semiotics: a primer and case studies applying semiotics in design.