Signs

In semiotics, a sign is generally defined as, \"...something that stands for something else, to someone in some capacity.\" (Marcel Danesi and Paul Perron, \"Analyzing Cultures\"). It may be understood as a discrete unit of meaning, whether denotative or connotative. more...

Home
Antique Clocks
Antique Furniture
Antiquities
Architectural Antiques
Chandeliers
Door Bells/ Knockers
Door Knobs/ Handles
Doors
Fireplaces
Garden
Hardware/ Home
Hooks/ Brackets
Light Switches
Locks/ Keys
Other Architectural Antiques
Plaques
Signs
Stained Glass
Stair/ Carpet Rods
Tiles
Weathervanes/ Lightning Rods
Windows/ Sashes/ Locks
Asian/ Oriental Antiques
Maps
Silver

Signs are not just words, but also include images, gestures, scents, tastes, textures, sounds — essentially all of the ways in which information can be processed into a codified form and communicated as a message by any sentient, reasoning mind to another.

The nature of signs has long been discussed in philosophy. Initially, within linguistics and later semiotics, there were two general schools of thought: those who proposed that signs are dyadic, and those who proposed that signs are interpreted in a recursive pattern of triadic relationships.

Dyadic signs

According to Saussure (1857-1913), a sign is composed of the signifier, and the signified. These cannot be conceptualized as separate entities but rather as a mapping from significant differences in sound to potential (correct) differential denotation. The Saussurean sign exists only at the level of the synchronic system, in which signs are defined by their relative and hierarchical privileges of co-occurrence. It is thus a common misreading of Saussure to take signifiers to be anything one could speak, and signifieds as things in the world. In fact, the relationship of langue to parole, or speech-in-context, is and always has been a theoretical problem for linguistics (cf. Roman Jakobson's famous essay \"Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics\" et al.). He is also important in emphasizing that the relationship between a sign and its extralinguistic denotatum is arbitrary. There is neither a natural relationship between a word and the object it refers to, nor is there a causal relationship between the inherent properties of the object and the nature of the sign used to denote it. For example, there is nothing about the physical quality of \"paper\" that requires denotation by the phonological sequence 'paper.' There is, however, what Saussure called 'relative motivation': the possibilities of signification of a signifier are constrained by the compositionality of elements in the linguistic system (cf. Emile Benveniste's paper on the arbitrariness of the sign in the first volume of his papers on general linguistics). A word is only available to acquire a new meaning if it is identifiably different from all the other words in the language and it has no existing meaning. It was the twin discoveries that 1) the distinction between the levels of system and use and 2) the semantic \"value\" of a sign could only be defined system-internally, that formed the basis of structuralism.

Triadic signs

Charles Peirce (1839-1914) proposed a different theory. Unlike Saussure who approached the conceptual question from a study of linguistics and phonology, Peirce was a Kantian philosopher who distinguishes \"sign\" from \"word\", and characterizes it as the mechanism for creating understanding. The result is not a theory of language, but a theory for the production of meaning that rejects the idea of a stable relationship between a signifier and its signified. Rather, Peirce believed that signs establish meaning through recursive relationships that arise in sets of three. The first three distinct components he identifies were:

Read more at Wikipedia.org