DOI: 10.24308/iass-2014-149

New Bulgarian University, Sofia, Bulgaria

ivankassabov@gmail.com

Abstract

This paper is not a survey of historical development of semiotics. It has nothing to do with diachronic research of semiotic ideas and schools. This text is par excellence structural schematic systematization of semiotic disciplines as dealing with different aspects of the sign in their interrelations and hierarchy within immanent paradigm of the sign itself.

Every single sign could be considered in terms of its form, in terms of its existence and in terms of its significance. The well-known Peircean signs’ division into three trichotomies and three correlations with reference to 3 types of signs in their 3 correlations (cf. Peirce 1992-1998: 296) can be jointly presented in one matrix. A similar nine-box matrix – named as the semiotic nonagon – has been elaborated (especially for the sign treatment of color) by Claudio Guerri (2009: 7). This matrix illustrates clearly the three types of sign existence, namely: of imaginary form, of actual existence and of symbolic values – each intersecting with three correlates (theoretical possibility, economical praxis and cultural strategy). Thus, we have to single out three interconnected but different levels of sign existence: of theoretical form (as architectonics or theory of sign possibility), of actual existence (as praxis), and of socio-cultural values (as knowledge or sign-language competence). Following Peirce’s famous Classification of Signs, the proposed matrix scheme allows for a more detailed study of the relationship between the components of the sign. Each of the matrix sub-signs (items from 1 to 9) can be tripled (as iconic sign, sign-index and sign-symbol) and thus obtaining (9 x 3 =) 27 sign possibilities and their corresponding types of values and their significance and meanings in the detailed and complicated matrix representing the semiotic model of sign with 27 positions.

Based on the matrix (Table 1), representing the semantic model of the sign to its possible, actual, and real existence, it appears appropriate to propose a particular kind of distribution for semiotic disciplines in the respective positions.

Table 1: An integrated matrix scheme of the sign

A similar matrix – named as the semiotic nonagon – has been elaborated by Cl. Guerri (2009: 7 – Table 2).

Table 2: The matrix of the semiotic nonagon

This matrix illustrates clearly the three types of sign’s existence, namely: of imaginary form, of actual existence and of symbolic values – each intersecting with three correlates (theoretical possibility, economical praxis and cultural strategy). For our purpose here it is important to emphasize the left to right diagonal positions (difference – different – differentiation) in the matrix and to suggest giving more attention to the right to left diagonal positions (cf. Kasabov 2013: 160). In the following matrix scheme these positions are marked congruence (systematization) – different – type of sign forms, respectively:

Table 3: The matrix of the semiotic nonagon in further development

It is possible to develop the matrix in Table 3 using some of the most popular scientific terms for proposing a schematic systematization of the basic semiotic disciplines. The developed matrix is presented in Table 4.

Table 4: The matrix of the basic systematization of semiotic disciplines

Consequently we can establish the places of structural, constructive and combinatorial semiotics. They should be located in the area Form of Form (internal form) of the sign under cognitive semiotics in our matrix (intersection 1 in Table 4) in detailed systematic presentation in Table 5 (and in further detailed presentation in Table 6 below). The area Existence of Form (intersection 2 in Table 4) may be described in more elaborated way too. A proposal of such a description is presented under general ‘meta’-semantics for structural (visual), constructive (topological) and iconic-associative semantics in Table 5 and given in further detailed presentation in Table 7. As to the area Value of Form (intersection 3 in Table 4) where under linguo-semiotics and semio-aesthetics are located systemic-structural aesthetics with linguo-semiotics, systematic constructive semiotics and derivational-combinatorial semiotics.

Table 5: A detailed Systematization of Semiotic Disciplines about FORM – 1 Correlate

Table 6: A detailed representation of Form of Form: 1. Correlate (intersection 1 in Table 4)

As a result of such a systematic analysis of signs’ semantics, it is possible to extract main semantic invariant features, or marks, as named substantiated qualities (such a sonority, lightness / darkness, corporality and animate, spirituality, personification, etc.) in their constructive functions as signs’ iconic semantic invariants or ’etymons’. However, it would not be possible to define these structural invariants without any reference to connotations, discussed above as cultural symbols’ interpretations founded on modal basis (cf. Kasabov 2012: 167-168; Kasabov 2013: 171). On these grounds – on the grounds of sign’ meanings – is possible to build lexicon-semantic architectonic categorization and systematization and to understand lexicon-semantic development of values, transformations of meaning and sign-formation processes.

Table 7: A detailed representation of Existence of Form – Semiotic Invariants concerning semantic disciplines about FORM: 1. Correlate (intersection 2 in Table 4)

The interpretative understanding of object’s essence of the sign has much in common with the actualized concept of construals, being either an ”interpreting” (in the case of facts, data, a statement) or ”interpretation” (here genealogy and taxonomy rest partly on admitted facts, but partly on the construal of facts: cf. Kröber 1923, 1939). Similar to the problems of construals are the problems presented by the modern concept of so-called plastic invariants (or figural expressive and content differential features of structure, colors, and forms), investigated in the field of visual semiotics (cf. Floch 1990,1995; Levi-Straus 1979), where the distinction is made “between two levels of analysis in visual texts: the figurative level, which uses some objects of the real world in order to create a fictional world; and plastic level, where no object of real world is recognizable”. Hence, the main problem is to single out the constitutive and constructive elements of the sign, or the invariant sign’s construals. These semantic invariants (cf. Kasabov 2012: 168; Kasabov 2013: 172) as network of non-figurative features in their oppositions and relations, such as: between couples of points, lines and measure (between the parts and the whole and as lightness / darkness, dynamic / static, are located in the area of Form of Form or internal form) of the sign in our matrix (Table 6: intersection 1 in Table 4). Possible Forms and Figures, such as: diagrams, objects, places, actions have been presented in the previous scheme of Existence of Form (Table 7: intersection 2 in Table 4).

Very similar to the problems of disposition of semiotic disciplines about sign’s form (1 correlate), presented in Table 5, are the problems connected with singling out semiotic disciplines about sign’s existence (as development the row of second correlate in the sign’s matrix (intersections 4, 5 and 6 in Table 4) presented here in Table 8.

Table 8: A detailed Systematization of Semiotic Disciplines about EXISTENCE – 2 Correlate

For the purpose of this paper it is not necessary to comment in details all the relations between recently outlined semiotic disciplines. Instead, which seems to be much more interesting, let us apply further sign’s division to expand the description of the third row (3 correlate: intersection 7, 8 and 9 in Table 4) presented here such as in Table 9.

Table 9: A detailed Systematization of Semiotic Disciplines about VALUE – 3 Correlate

Thus, for area Form of Value (intersection 7 in Table 4) might include three sub-trichotomies (being three types of legisign): type objects’ associated forms, type words’ associated forms and type words; and three sub-correlate: ethnological prototypes, socio stereotypes and anthropological archetypes (detailed presented in Table 11: intersections 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3). In this way, as we can see in Table 10, it would split into nine, more specifically determined areas (from intersection 7.1 to intersection 9.3 in Table 10).

Table 10: A detailed representation of Existence of Value and Value of Value – concerning disciplines of Meaning and Rhetoric about VALUE: 3. Correlate (intersection 8 and 9 in Table 4)

Table 11: A detailed representation of Form of Value – concerning cultural disciplines of signification about VALUE: 3. Correlate (intersection 7 in Table 4)

One of the general peculiarities of the sign-systems like language is rooted in the dynamics of objects’ and sign’s transformations from the forms of the sacral (such as totem, fetish and idol) to the forms of the profane in everyday language vocabulary and vice versa. For example, to realize the semantic relevance of idiomatic idiolectal stylistic connotations one needs to have in mind ethnologically prototypical magic and mystic prejudicial forms like mana, totem, idol, fetish and the so-called nomen-omen or numina nomina together with their corresponding language forms (taboo, euphemism etc.) of still undistinguished syncretic word-objects. Similarly, in order to understand social connotations we have to investigate emblematicsocial stereotypes like heroes, (stage)-divas and (movie)-stars, attributes and brands with their corresponding language forms like slang and argotic words or pseudonyms. For the understanding of metaphors and other rhetorical tropes, we need to deal with archetypically anthropological symbolic forms like gifts or sacrifice) and language forms like acronyms, anagrams, puns (calembours, paronomasia) or paronymous, exotic and poetic word-forms (cf. Kasabov 2006; Kasabov 2012: 170-172; Kasabov 2013: 173-189).

Here proposed systematization, as any given classification, has schematic and preliminary, but not final character. The aim here is just to give a panoramic scape on the field of semiotics from the point of view immanent to the sign itself.

References:

FLOCH,J.-M. 1990: Sémiotique, marketing et communication, Paris: PUF.

FLOCH,J.-M. 1995: Identités visuelles, Paris: PUF.

GUERRI, Cl. 2009: The Semiotic Nonagon and the Graphic Language TSD: an operative model for qualitative research and the scope of a new graphic language: Presentation in XV. Early Fall School of Semiotics, Sozopol, Bulgaria, 2009.

KASABOV, Iv. 2006: Gramatika na semantikata [Grammar of Semantics], Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.

KASABOV, Iv. 2012: Words’ Connotations and Semantic Construals. – In: Alternate Construals in Language and Linguistics. Wrocław: Widawnictwo Wyžszej Szkoły Filologicznej we Wrocławiu, 2012, pp. 161-174.

KASABOV, Iv. 2013: Problemi na obstata leksikologia [Issues of General Lexicology], Sofia: Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House.

KRÖBER, A.1923: Anthropology. New York, (rev. ed. 1948).

KRÖBER, A.1939: Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. Berkeley, 1939)

LEVI-STRAUS,Cl.: 1979 (1975): La voie des masques, Plon, Paris.

PEIRCE,Ch. 1992–1998: The Essential Peirce. Selected Philosophical Writings (EP), 2 volumes, Edited by N. Hauser and Ch. Kloesel, Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Pr.