idi

SEMIOTICS

SEMIOTICS: a primer

A Primer on Semiotics and the Visual: Mechanisms of Meaning for communication design.

SEMIOTICS is a study of perception, or more accurately a study of the mechanisms of the mind in processing perception. While more in-depth inquiries on the mechanisms of the mind are also found in other topics here we will focus on the perceptual aspects for the designing of communication systems.

Semiotics is the theory that deals with questions concerning meaning, cognition, reference, truth, and reality, recognizes that there are degrees of involvement. Since communication depends entirely on the creation of “signs,” semiotics is the “theory of signs”.

The philosopher-semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce defined the sign as something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity: a sign renders inefficient relations efficient. ... Knowledge in some way renders them efficient. A sign is something by which we know something more...”.Peirce had the inclusive understanding of semiotics that embraced the fact that “the universe is a perfusion of signs” ... which includes pictures, symptoms, words, sentences, books, libraries, signals, orders of command, microscopes, legislative representatives, musical concertos, performances of these.”

Peirce said that semiotics is 1) the logic of relations (Peirce); 2) the science (= knowledge) of signs (Charles Sanders Peirce); 3) the theory of representation (Charles Morris), of expression, of interpretation; 4) the theory of mediation is the logic of the vagueness (Peirce); 5) the science of knowledge. Peirce also said that “logic, in its general sense, is only another name for semiotic, the quasi- necessary, or formal doctrine of signs.”

Designers can therefore think of the design process that creates a stage setting wherein all aspects will cause the interpreter to become “set up” to think about meaning in a particular respect, and wherein interpretation become an “internal” stimulant for right action; i.e., a stage setting designed to as the framework for communication wherein all aspects become the acting vehicles for building insight and depth, both immediate and beyond that.

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.

But, interpretation and communication reflect a more complicated process of perception being based cause and effect. And this 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).

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?

Peirce based his sign theory on principles of a logic of relations and noted the possibility of an infinite number of sign systems. And this semiotic logic of relationships allows us to understand something that reflects the phenomenological perspective of the external, as well as the ontological perspective of the internal world of self—which worlds are not as separate as we think. What counts is what John Deely explains that “At the heart of semiotics is the realization that the whole of human experience, without exception, is an interpretive structure mediated and sustained by signs.”

Unlike the Saussurean dyadic operation of sign, the underlying principle for Peirce’s semiotics is triadic being based on three universal categories—the word “principle” meaning a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system or chain of reasoning. The more we grasp the nature of this underlying principle the better our capacities to understand and apply semiotics to design—be that from forming to planning, from naming to valuing, from the smallest element to the largest scope of complexity and wholeness.

Let briefly go into this underlying principle. Perception begins with our senses perceiving a quality, or feeling. This first stage of a “quality” or “possibility” or a "somethingness" which Peirce called firstness. Then this possibility is compared to a second that is known or was experienced which Peirce called secondness. That second initiates the reasoning process, called thirdness, which in turn affects firstness and secondness, which continues as a dynamic process of reasoning and perceiving. Most of the time this happens instantaneously—but the principle process of semiosis remains a movement from the initial state that awakens our consciousness into awareness, thought, and reasoned determinacy.

An example of this semiosis is that when I hear a sound I compare this noise to something I’ve heard before, like a siren. Then we associate that idea with an electric alarm for some danger. And if I am in a building, and might conclude my reasoning with an “ah, it’s the fire alarm” that means for me to take immediate action for leaving the building.

So, thirdness is the level of specialized interpretation, as in the phenomena of thought which typically projects and elaborates. It means to bring a second in relation to a third, which is generally referred to by Peirce as a general law, or argued as law. And it is this aspect of thirdness that is the key to Peirce’s semiotic theory: the “generality” (which also means continuity) that governs “things” and their meaning yet points to the relationships within this continuity or generality.

The triadic view of Peirce’s logic of relations form a relational unity that further implicates states of interdependence and dynamic continuity. These three principles are not merely separate aspects in a sequential order — 1+2+3 — because in that model 1and 2 lose their individuality and relatedness, and become mere statistics.

As interactive and interdependent categories, their relational value is perhaps best expressed as a ratio of 1: 2 : 3; i.e., in the dynamic holistic mode of perception, they relate proportionally to one another with A, B, and C being but different aspects of one underlying, continuous proportional relationship.

Here are some personal notes from my own inquiry into trying to map this out and help me understand the consequences.

Firstness is that first level of perceptual awareness illuminated within us as some quality or possibility of something being without reference to anything else. Secondness comes in when there is some comparison or experience which brings the first into relationship to a second. Thirdness brings that second in relation to a third according to some law or generalization.

In other words, for Peirce a sign is the result of a process which he called semiosis.

The three subjects this requires Peirce named: the Representamen (R), as the level of firstness; the Object (O) as a possible meaning; and the Interpretant (I) that qualifies the relationship to complete the triad.

Technically, the triadic aspect was always there from the first moment of perception. Let me slightly expand on this to make sure this is clear.

At the level of firstness our perception senses something. A secondness compares this to some experience or remembered relationship. And a third level of interaction brings these two in a cognitive fact which concludes our knowing that this thingness represents “tree.”

But if the comparison is changed in its relationship to this image of a forest (which a tree is part of), then meaning is change for us to this group of trees and becomes FOREST.

That is changed again if we the drawing to this image of a Shaker drawing, and knowing that for the Shakers that drawing is symbol for the “tree of life” — in which case it meaning LIFE.

In other words, things change depending on the dynamics of relational factors. Peirce identified this as types on signs and he developed a rather extensive “typology” of signs—but we will not go into this now.

If you have difficulty remembering these terms for Object, Representamen and Interpretant, this is a dumb version of what these mean. Representamen is the "product" in terms of its form and medium we become engaged with. The Object is what that can mean—which the Interpretant drives home when context or purpose for the object are provided.

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.

Looking at this from a semiotic perspective the poster as product for mediation is the Representamen. When that poster is interpreted and becomes an “Object” (i.e., some idea the poster is or can refer to) then the semiosis process helps us understand it as a “sign” — in this case, having mediated the sign as a particular object, we understand its relationship to its source and the purpose it serves as a poster that promotes RISD’s graduate programs. That particular understanding is due to the so-called Interpretant.

Understand also that the “Interpretant” factor represents a number (even a potential volume) of “ideas” (as “signs” that stand the educational institution called RISD, and so on. RISD is, of course, another sign—but in this case it is also the "client" for the designer. And the relation aspects got on to this being a certain type on institution, what it reflects, being about art, design, students, studios, money, location, etc., ... each of which is actually a sign in its own reality.

We might say that the Interpretant represents a “word cloud” of ideas — each word (sign) actually representing an “Object” which means that from a “sign” perspective each is also a sign as such with Interpretant factors. So, this poster was intentionally made to make ideas meaningful by collapsing many ideas (signs) into a single sign generalized as poster.

So, from this perspective, with the Shannon-Weaver communication model as part of this point-of-view, we can say that this is the “sender’s” sign.

So then we can take this a bit further and view this from the receiver or user’s perspective.

Now, each user has her or his own point of view, of course,
with other Interpretants brought into relationship as a “cloud”of Interpretant perspectives, associations, interests, feelings, and capacities to understand.

This has consequences, but we hope will result as a similar sign to that of the sender, albeit is different from that no matter what (and we could say in parallax view of the same “thing”).

Let’s say they are merely two points of view (in parallax) of the same thing as different but related signs.

And if we leave out the generalizations of “sender” and “receiver” we can be more precise by labeling these respectively as the “client’s” sign (Sc) and user’s sign (Su).

We will now see how this operates concerning design. We can say that in our process of design to “make meaning” to design means not to design merely a form, but a “sign”—or system of signs—with the intention to serve a certain purpose of semiosis—which we generalize as communication.

When we consider the dynamics of the triadic relations of semiosis we have to appreciate the basis of what a sign confronts us with relative to their purpose. For example, to design a poster, or a book as space-time experience, or the interface of an electronic object we first have to ask “what do I want my product to say, and how and why? And will the object say the same to another person who interacts with it?

But now I want to note the significance of the Interpretant in that each time a new Interpretant factor is brought into the picture each new factor is a new sign! And that each new sign in turn mediates the previous perception we have of meaning, which alters our perception in a different light, and changes meaning — and so on and so forth.

So, again, understand that it is the principle of Thirdness that brings about this dynamic web of reasoning, which represents the power of the mind to take us from our subtle levels of consciousness into a dynamic process of knowing, from which evolves the knower. Therefore, the Interpretant is a principle concept that filters perception and knowing and action help us generate the dynamics of signs brought into relationships.