SIGNS IN CONTEMPORARY CULTURE : -

ANNENBERG/LONGMAN COMMUNICATION BOOKS

George Gerbner and Marsha Siefert' Editors

The Annenberg School of Communications

University of Pennsylvania' Philadelphia

SIGNS INCONTEMPORARY

Arthur Asa Berqer /' -San Francisco State'UFrive"rsity ( f ,3'4

CULTURE :An Introduction

to Semiotics

lllustrations by the author

i l iilt

Longmo.nNew York & London

The voice is the voice of JacobBut the hands are the hands of Esau

(Gen.27:22)

SIGNS IN CONTEMPORARY CULTUREAn Introduction to Semiotics

Longman Inc., 1560 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10036Associated companies, branches, and representativesthroughout the world.

Copyright @) 1984 by Longman Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmittedin any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the priorpermission of the publisher.

Developmental Editor: Gordon T. R. AndersonProduction/Manufacturing: Ferne Y. KawaharaComposition: Graphicraft TypesettersPrinting and Binding: Malloy Lithographing Inc.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataBerger, Arthur Asa, Date.

Signs in contemporary culture.

(Annenberg/Longman communication books)Bibliography: p.Inclu,les index.1. Signs and symbols. 2. Semiotics. I. Tit le. II. Series.

P99.8437 1,984 001.51 83-17529ISBN 0-582-28487 -2

Manufactured in the United States of America^ 6

- a <

^1 2 1 Year: 9291 9089 88 87 86 85 84

Contents

Preface

Acknowledgments

I DefinitionHonor in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part I

2 IJow Signs WorkSherlock Holmes 16

3 Signs, Symbols, and SignalsEmpire of Signs 2I

4 Forms of SignsEight Hypotheses on Digilal Watches 29

5 Visual Aspects of SignsTheJudy Chicago Show 38

6 Problems of SignsPop Art 45

7 Denotation and ConnotationComics and ldeology 51

lx

xi

I

19

48

CONTENTS

8 Imaginary SignsFreud on Dreams 62

9 Signs that LieOn Parody 7l

10 Men's Looks: Signifiers and Life-Style

Denimization 80

1l Coherence in SignsFormulas in the Public Arts 85

12 Who Uses Signs?Poetry as Sign 92

13 Signs and ldentitYThe Rewards of Myth I04

14 Terms Associated with SignsAuteur Crit icism 111

15 Signs and ImagesPhotography 11,9

16 No Sign as SignThe Natural Look 124

17 Signs that ConfoundArcimboldo 130

18 Sign ModifiersCartooning 136

19 Manifest and Latent Meaning in Signs

Robinson Crusoe 143

20 Analyzing Signs and Sign Systems" Reach )ut and Touch Someone" 151

2l CodesBaseball 162

22 Characteristics of CodesFoodsasSigns I70

23 Meaning"The Paper Chase" l"l7

References

A Selected BibliograPhY

Dictionary of Concepts

Index

57

67

75

83

89

95

108

t14

r27

133

139

148

155

165

tzz

LIJ

181

184

189

1.93

Preface

This book is an introduction to semiotic or semiological thought and anapplication of semiotics to the mass media, the arts, and related concerns.It is designed for the general reader who has no background in semiotics,although I believe that even those with a familiarity with the subject mayfind it useful. signs in Contemporary Culture, unlike many other semioticsbooks, is as much concerned with the uses of semiotic theory as it is withthe theory itself.

Each chapter is divided into two sections: the first deals with ailS.g"tg_tjgl toJlc o_lJgpJc_l from semiotics and the second applies a conceprfrom the theoretical section to some aspect of the mafrfrEaTa. Eveiytheoretical section has an application which is meant to suggest howsemiotics can be used to understand better the mass medii, poFiiilcult'ffi an? evervfrilrtre.

Semiotics, the "science of signs" and of the codes used to understandthem, is an "imperialistic" science, one which has applicability to manydifferent areas of life. (Some semioticians go so far as to claim that it is angqler_{i5tdtgg which can be used to explain every aspect of communica-ltr-L) fnur, in this book you will find discussi6ns 6*fsuTfrTopibs6:toffi,

PREFACE

detective fiction, humor, formulaic genres' advertising, sports, photogra-

pty, f^rf , lon,televisionprograms'cartoons' theatre'art i facts 'v ideogames'fairy tales, nr.r, unJ"Jffiate symbols' The concepts found in semiotics

.un'U" ur"a tg"tgi.ute'these topics and many others' as you will soon

discover.Actually, y*e -?Ie all semioti-cians' even if we don't recognize it or

understand the techiii"Calitf;of fhElilUiect. (We are all like the character

in the Molidre play *ho n"ut' realized that he always spoke prose') We all

know about s!-llyg!Jg-b-ols; we all talk. about 'tryiqg9.:^ilf we all read

articles in n"*rpup"Fiitl magazines about "bod'jliangq:€:-, ard "dress-

ing for power.,, w"'uir f.u.ticJ semiotics on a ueiy-iuperficial level and in

a most tltr.l.y-^*-e-*11i"9 *uy, as one might expect from untutored and

unconscious semlotlclansSigns in Contemporary Culture is .meant

to help you become Lqig-

systematic unO ,n-o-r"',,1g9.19-Il semioticians' There is a catch that I must

iner i l i i i i i , 'however.s 'a* imia- i .averycomplicatedscience.. ' I thasi tsownterminology and in order to function as a semiotician you will have to learn

some ofthis languag". s" y"" will find yourself dealing withlglgq such as

;G;ifi".t ana slg'ninZa,, "od"',

icons' and indexes' I have kept this a"Lc-4'Lq-

1eryt{t-q-l-Agy to a minirnum and, since this is an introduction to the subject'

avoided certain aleas of controversy (among semioticians)'^ .1I"'::.:.YY"";;;; ""

annoiated uiutiograptry at the end of the book for

those who wish to pr.r* ,fr" subject furiher. There is a large and rapidly

growing literature'on- ttt" subject and many of the b-ooks cited in the

bibliography contain -laige

bibiiograp.hies themselves' I hope' also' that

readers of Signs i, i""ii^p"rory"Cilturt will be able to use semiological

and semiotic "on."ftt

to 'nutt"

ih"it o*n analyses of ov1j45g'ryi!91e-9'

culture, that they "iiii

nno semiotics a ke3_that unlocks all kinds of doors.fiid-'oifers insights and understunaiffi'Tfr'at are not available to those

without a familiarity with the subject'

Signs in Cortriporary Culturi is a personal (perhaps even idiosyncra-

tic) explanation of semiotic and semiological theory and application of this

theory to the rysl;;"d;;rp*{i+q;' the arts' and cul-qgIgll ryry3'l:

_- Charles Sanders peirce, one of the founiinE-f;ifr'er-s gtiTiIWct, onCe

said "...this uni".rt"'is perfused with signs' if ft tt ttt t"-9-ry-$t9+,"

exclusively of signs." If this ii the case, and I believe it is, it makes sense tor

.,iimad;=i;ftirui rign, are and how they function and to explore some

of ,n" B--o-*+Llgtgsl]gg, and revealing signs about us' lt , U , i t , . " r-.rn.rv:- *1 .p"h-*.f " ' '

Acknowledgments, , ' t

;,,:i',ril;,r,;,i1;,;:r}:} i i,ir:i irlf ,;., ;1.11;i;;';:{.' lt

I owe a special debt of gratitude to George Gerbner, who saw a prototypeof this book and urged me to expdh*ii-iiin*6-a*fiitt-length text. I am alsograteful for his and-Marsha Siefert 's editorial advice and encouragement.They were good enough to provide me with two reviewers, whosecomments and suggestions were of inestimable value. I appreciate the closereadings they gave my manuscript and their many helpful ideas.

I also benefitted from the ideas (and in some cases the friendship) ofthe following people: U":tb_":lg.Eqo, Jean-Marie Benoist, Bg"lgqd_B3r$e,-q,Jonathan Culler, Ferdinand de Saussure, Charles Sanders Peirce, Fustel deCout an ges, Johan*iTuizinga, SGntev-Mitgra;;-cla;a;edidlte, ClaudeL6vi-Strauss, Ernest Dichter, Vladimir Propp, Aaron Wildavsky, Mircea

_ --El]3flg, YgJ_Pglgl as, I rvi n g Lo ui s Horowitz, Al a n D u ndes, Witt i ali-F-ifiTerence Hawkes, Robert Scholes, Rosalind Coward, Frederic Jameson,Keir Elam, John Ellis, Alan Gowans, Ed Graham, Edfdi'lffffi, ila*rid^Noble, Seymour Ch atman, Jean, Piagj-t, Jean Guenot, Mg_$!A[.-\{fu ltSlr_r.Thomas Sebeok, and Gle_gJ8Eiiglpn. There were many others. Thanlis,alSoJo JE*Biowman f-oi some fine photos.

<''-'x4. "tt " ,/ *{r--

''' ' r.'-,* t ,u,,. ti,.,*,. t ' /t, or'"/*o't-'h.*-., '( :/"

) ,L, ' . -

I

i?"'lt .tr,'t -,':../ c" j).1::.:].-'t.ut-. t\

t r ; , , : { . -o ' r

.*-,.. a,Q.-V. 2.".i ..'>

" i,.n -

14

l,- (,',,;,y 7-.t*'' 3 ie/\-'zt'+z

1'a'a,

! .

.1

SIGNS IN CONTEMPORARY CULTURE

is a supreme realig,t. His speech on the subject of honor is one of the most

*.^tiifrl--pffi"g.s in tne play and one that literary scholars and philos-

ophers have found particularly interesting.In Act V, Scene 2,IJ.al and Falstaff are having a conversation about a

forthcoming battle and Hal tells Falstaff, half-seriously, that he owes God

a death. To which Falstaff rePlies:

Tis not due yet: I would be loath to pay him before his day. What need I be so

forward with him that calls not on me? Well, ' t is no matter; honor pricks me on.

Yea, but how if honor prick me off when I come on? How then? Can honor set

a leg? No. Or an arm? i.to. Or take away the grief of a wound? Nijltiiin<jiiiiiliti6'tklrf"in iilig;il;ttreili No. What is ho-!or? A word. what is-t6e-f-wor-Ah-bnoif lti?::Ai iiir reckoni n g I Wiio trattrTi{fr;t ffi t ai[i a Wednesd a v. D othhe feel it? No. Doth he hear it? No. 'Tis insensible then? Yea, to the dead. Butwil l [ i t] not l ive with the l iving? No. Why? Detraction wil l not suffer it.

Therefore I ' l l none of it. Honor is a mere scutcheon-and so ends my

catechism. (1962:89)

what is honor but a word, and what is a word but air: that is Falstaff 's

conclusion from his inquiry into honor, its role in society, and related

matters. Notice Falstaff 's l ine of inquiry. He asks what honor can do for

the wounded soldier and concludes that-i lgql-dq lg!]lgg' "It has no skil l in

surgery" and, by implication, in l i fe in general. All that honor, a mere

word, air, does is lead people to get themselves kil led in battle. But when

they are dead they cannot enjoy their honor. So honor is a mere

"scutcheon" or desire fglr-"lgJg!"gn which is dangerous to one's health

ano-ili:tls?it& - :*

We find, then, three approaches to the concept of honor in the play.

Hotspur's is the most l"ggl:jrgg-9.999{r{ISgt. Honor is something to be

gained by outstandingfeats or great heroism. It is aprize to be "plucked"

and he has no doubt that he is capable of gaining honor and renown. With

Hal the matter is mole_c-omphcelgg He prizes honor but he is extremely

calculating and peifi ips even Oeceitful in the way he goes about attaining

it. Does this behavior tarnish the honor he gains? Is Hal shrewd and clever

or something worse? Arguments can be made for both cases. Falstaff, on

the other hand, rejects honor (and this shortly after he has said "Honor

pricks me on.") Honor is only a wol-d aqg ygl-q;.gry-gq!1-qif'.Is Falstaff a

realist here, oils rie i-aiioir?iii"g rtit t*n-id*ii?G?rz"lr notior is only aword, what about l-ov-.e,. j,US-tig-e-,.--e-g99!!!y,.1_r9-qt? Falstaff may be a drunkensensualist and a coward, but in his disquisition on honor he poses aproblem of considerable importance, one that everyone, at some time orother, must come to grips with.

Two

How Signs Work

Isaid_earlier that signs are anything that can be used to stand for somethingets3t e9t !ro.w clr-gigns actually *oitt rhere are two rmportant approachesto the signThat I wo[iilliF6Eptdin. The first is based on un rnii'gr,t rro,''Saussure, who said that signs ui" .o'npor"d of two erements-a sound-imai (such as a word or visuar represeniation) and 3gryg{rormffi"sound-image stands:

I call the combination of a concept and a sound-image a sign, but in currentusage the term generally designates only a sound-r'u#;-i *ord used forexample (arbor, etc.). one tends to forget that arbor"is'.; l l .d ; sign onrybecause it-griigl!1"-.,QD-sept "tree," with the result that the idea of thes-:lsoly_-pl1j implies the idea of the whole.

$g!-|e-iill X-eUl{-9-il-lp!qq.!t the three notioL! itvolved here were desrgnated_Qv.--tb_tS::9rys. e nhlngtestin&na' dppdi" g th

" "th*, J propd" ro ;., en

: i :,1".t0.!1e3 (signe) to designate the whole and to repface concept andsound_rmage respectively by.rigfu4 gignifiq and:ieJtfie:isignifiant);the last

two terms have the advantage of indicating the opffidi-thui ,.purut", th",from each other and from the whole of *ni.n tn"y are parts. ( '1966:67)

,l;

in

67):


Sausure used the following diagramsto illustrate his ideas (1966:66-Tips forEnergy Savers

II IIFrom Ferdinand de saussure, A course in.gen,e,r?JLinguistics, New York' Mccraw-Hill'

1 966. Reprinted witn permissibn'oiFrtirotophical Library Publishers'

The next diagram suggests the..unity of sign' sienifi^1^and-si8nified'

Saussure said that sifn-' *"'e like pieces oi pup"t; one side'was the

sienifier, the othercif;;;t ;"^ttgtilr*a' and the paper itself' the sign'

We cannot separate the signifier and signified from the sign itself' The

rrg.ii,- ""0

signified form the sign'

There i, on.'no'i;i"; ;;;;"ts crucial' For saussure'tlt-gjglglignlllp

between the signifier""[l'rig"in"a is arbitrary, a mattei"of-chance and

ciiiinbfrtibn. Trrie abetnoir.rJun, Sauisure t6lld us, "that the choice of the

signifier is left entirety';;'il speaker" but rather that it is "unmotivated'

i.e. arbitrarv in tttui ; ;c#[ iu' no natural connection wr-th lhq

sienifi6A'."?'966:69) [my italicsl- -r .,,kar cionc, ,.,. ' '€A,, ' (t

One has to learn whal -wgrgl -mgal and what--signs mean (except tn

certain cases, which'i ;iii"-pi;* inortty)' tn ttre case of words we have

dictionaries which give us the conventional meaning of words; in the case

oi'i'rfrf ifi-sbtt"n u airi"'"nt story'-W-e-g-e-4-erallv haie to be t3-qg'!1;-ig9q' in

one way or anorher. iH"t, tor'eia,irprf. otl"uiniiig dhit-liighway signs U.S. Deparlmenl of EnergyWashinglon, D.C. 20585

Il *TI

orbor

eonceTt

€oun/- i^o3o

S.1". i f i tJ5,1^, f . " r

Note:Thereissomedisagreementaboutthearbi t rarynatureofthesign,InPeirce'stheory '

l9i -11] -:ignL u,-9 . 9'p1g ^ryJ"rv -:y*-o-tl,".tt

ttbitrarv or non motiv ated

12 SIGNS IN CONTEMPORARY CULTURE

mean, driving signals, and so on. We send for a booklet from theDepartment of Motor Vehicles and learn how various signs are to beinterpreted.

}.l":_*g:_"-.,!jlygy_r=*1-"_"1_l:".f9en_t by any means, though in

many cases meanrng'Tdf-bd--understood fy"interpreting diagrams andprctures.

Let us now turn to the second important approach to understandingsigns, a system of sign analysis developed by one of America's mostbril l iant and neglected thinkers, the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914). Peirce said signs a[q f]gje"d._t_g*o-.b=ie-g.t9_.bffeCp.nbliug_!heq1,b,"ilg_SgUSAlU.g-o-Lrf9"S1-Cd t,o_-t_h-eg_r, or b-gr_rlg.g_o-qv-entionally tied to them. Heused the term iconic for resembla

""",'iiiii[g,Tt"i: ca-irtal ccinneciion, and

symbol for cqgvg4..!!9r!gl asi&iiiffi. The following'i-hill'makes this moreclear.

Peirce's lcon/lndex/Symbol Trichotomy

Sign lcon lndex Symbol

HOWSIGNS WORK 13who use peirce's icon/index/symbol schema identify themserves as semioti_-1t3s'

Mv own incrination is io ,r" uoil'ryggrys whenever possitiiEiifrcJeach has utility. ..1_ll,practical o";ffi I ;lr .";;;;;;.r5iio,o* unosemiotics to be essengigilggigl[4r-ari,r* they are both concerned witht'l,"tifr*#;11;;l]"*trffi "',il."rthink;";i;pp,i'p,i,,"rorthe

Note: There are, Saussure notes, two objections frequently made tohis assertion that the reration ;;;;; the signifier ind signified isarbitrary' The first is the matter "t-t",iiir"pori". He says that 6nomato_poeic formations "are never organideT'ffi'ents of a ringuistic system,, andare not onry limited in number 6ut also tiosen somewhat arbitrariry, forthey are onry approximate and ;;;;""."i"rs conventionar imitations ofcertain sounds'" (1966:69) etso ttrese *"ord,

"uolu" and change like otherwords. The second objection, *i"r^irl'ir31gr1i913r, he dismisses out of

[3:,]ffi :5T;::X'rl""J ;;;-;;;?5ho u",*en their signined and

f Peirce differs f.oTl_g:r_llre on the "rol1r:lffo.1] ;:.?;;t#.:,i n deii iEi-ibrati6ns" [n d ]b..nic';eT"riunri#,;wg . rmiixmok e i s n otT-"j-g-ll_ *"p I ve n tio n a lly " associ a ted wiir, -#t i#1^ : i::":T:": * "

"i"; '68-ti6ilitHri""ted.

o-nrv sv'uor, u.l',,xlio',ilL'iol"l'"sentatibnTLet us move from th"offiffi;rl.;tt^ .itn". bizarreform of humor that deverop"i r" it" ""riigsor, Roger price,s d.roodres.They are simple drawings trt"i r."i trtJrr"tu", to varied (and comic)lnterpretations. one of price's

'no." "n,".iu,ning droodles follows:

Signify by:Examples:

Process

ResemblancePicturesStatues of great figuresPhoto of Reagan

Can see

Causal connectionSmoke/FireSymptom/Disease(Red spots/Measles)Can figure out

ConventionWordsGestures

Must learn

This chart is derived from Peirce's statement that:

an analysis of the essence of a sign. . . leads to a proof that every sign isdetermined by its .o_[i.gg!, either first, by partaking in the characters of theobject, when I call the sign an lcon; secondly, by being really and in itsindividual existence connected with the individual _g$-gg!, when I call the signan Index; thirdly, by more or less approximate certainty that it will beinterpreted as denoting the object, in consequence ofa habit (which term I useas including a natural disil-o-sitidi), when I call the sign a SymboL (Quoted in J.Jay Zeman, "Peirce's Theory of Signs" in T. Sebeok, A Perfusion of Signs,1977:36). . '._ :"1:: jl .

_1.... ;; < r <_ <r :

If Saussure's statemenil6out signifiers and signifieds is the key to thesemiological mode of analysis, Peircg]*..-t.-tt-g!g*y is the key to semioticanalysis. Both are concerned with signs and signification, but they havedifferent perspectives.

Scholars who use the Saussurean perspective and adopt his essentially

Itnggir-qg,f-rame- of reference in analyzing films, television programs,fashion, and so on, generally identify themselves as semiologists. Those

This droodle was interpreted by price three different wavs;

1 Four elephants inspecting a grapefruit.

2. Crisis in a pool hail.3. Four unsportsmanlike gopher hunters.


The inventive reader, of course, might find other humorous ways of

ng&tg€*jggf*"SJ this drawing. The droodle, which seems to be acombination of doodle and drawing, has two characteristics: first, it is verysimple, with very little information given; and second, it is ambiguous andcan have many different "meanings."

Semiologically we would say that droodles are signifiers that can have

T-?gy*qif.{9,T-9uls!gll-0gqs. It is the ingenuity that Pric6'3Iow'Jd-inTh'ink1rtup zany signifieds which generated much of the humor. (It might also beasserted that it is the power of the sign to "lie" that is at the heart of thedroodle.) The droodle also plays upon the need we all have to find meaningin things, even when very little data is given.

For our second illustration, consider a humorous drawing I made toillustrate an article in The Journal of Communication. (Winter 1981:169.)

The article was on electronic banking and my problem was to findsome way of signifying that concept or topic. After a considerable amountof thinking I did the following drawing:

From "Eleclronic Banking and the Death of Privacy," Journal of Communicalion, Winter1981 , p. 169, Reprinted with permission.

The drawing uses iconic and symbolic components to make its point. Itmerges the "piggy bank" and the electric plug (attached to the tail) tosuggest electronic banking. The body of the pig and the pig's tail, which isturned into an electric plug, are both iconic; that is, they both resemblepigs, on the one hand, and electric plugs, on the other. But a pig, with aslot on the top to deposit money, is symbolic. You have to know aboutpiggy banks to make sense of the drawing. The slot on the top turns adrawing of a pig that is iconic into a piggy bank, the meaning of whichcomes from experience and is symbolic.

F.rrally, let us look at the Tolqh, the first five books of the OldTestament. Here we come across God's instruction to the Jews about thesignificance of circumcision. I quote here from The Jewish PublicationSociety of America's translation:

HOW SIGNS WORK 15

God further said to afrl_tram, ,,As for you, you and your offspring ro comethroughout the ases shat keep rrly ."ri"*",. such inatt be ihe Jonvenantbetween Me and i",,u:o vou, f*.prine t-o'io'o* *hi.t t;;;iiiJ"p, "u"r,male among you shalr be circumciJJ. -you ,trutt .i..u."i.. iiri n"rt, of yourforeskin, and that shall.be Jhe.Sjg "f1n"

IJu.nrn, between Me and you. Andthroughout the generatio"ffi; r;;;;;"g you sha, be circumcised at theage of eight days." (Gen. 17:9_12)

Circumcision amongstJews is, then, 3 ,_!gI of the covenant between Godand the Jews. It is nlt always; ro";'ffihness since some non_Jews arecircumcised and there are Jewisi'mates r.om nonobservant families who

il:,:"..t".j|:umcised' But for the Jews, t.ls-argtleflgg or .ir.ur.irion i,

E33

a


Here I advance the thesis that Sherlock Holmes is really a practicingsemiologist and that our fascination with him is connected to the ingeniousiay'in'ifrch he applies semiology to problems he faces.

SHERLOCK HOLMES: MASTER SEMIOTICIAN/SEMIOLOGIST.

One of the greatest appeals of Sherlock Holmes is his abil ity to find.meaning where there seems to be nothing. He is, l ike most of the greatdetectives (of the classical, deductive school) a master semiotician, whounderstands signs and what they can tell to the one who knows how to"read" them. One of the more interesting examples of Holmes's abil ity tointerpret phenomena comes in one of his more celebrated cases, "The BlueCarbuncle. "

The story begins with Watson visit ing Holmes several days afterChristmas (to wish him well) and finding Holmes examining a "very seedyand disreputable hard felt hat, much the worse for wear, and cracked inseveral places." The hat had been recovered by a policeman on Christmaswho found a group of young toughs attacking a man carrying a goose. Thetoughs knocked the hat off the man, who swung his cane to protect himselfand broke a window. When the man saw the policeman, he dropped thegoose and also fled-leaving the hat and the goose.

Holmes says the hat should not be looked upon as just an old hat butrather as an "intellectual problem." He then asks Watson what he candeduce from the hat about its wearer.

Holmes says, "HeIg is my,l-ens. You kno,w qy mg-thods. What can yougather yourself as to*t-lie-fiAii/iAualfiy-'oT ifre ma;'f;?io has worn thisart ic le?" I iere is Watson's descr iot ion of the hat:

* After lwrotethissect ionldiscoveredawonderful essayonthesemiot icaspectsof Holmes's

work. See Thomas A. Sebeok and Jean Umiker-Sebeok, "You Know My Method: A

Juxtaposi t ion of Char les S. Peirce and Sher lock l {o lmes," ,Semiot ica 26, nos. 3-4 (1919).

HOW SIGNS WORK 17

I took the tattered object in my hands, and turned it over rather ruefu'y. Itwas a very ordinary black hat of the usual round shape, rr"ra,"."o much theworse for wear' The lining had been of red silk, urt *u, a good dealdiscoloured' There was no maker's name; but, as Holmes hal rJmarked, theinit ials "H.8." were scrawled upon one side. It was pierced in the brim for ahat-securer, but the elastic was missing. por the rest, it ,"u* .rucr.eo,exceedingly dusty' and spotted in severafpraces, althoug; ;;"r" seemed tohave been some attempt to hide the discoloured patches by smearing themwith ink. (Doyle, 1975:159_160)

other facts made known in the story are that the hat was large, hairends were stuck to the lower end of the rining, there were brown dust andwax stains on the hat, it hadn't been brushe-d in weeks, and ih"r" *u, ugood deal of moisture on the hatband. . . I see nothing,, , Watson says. , ,Onthe contrary, Watson, you can see everyrhin g. Vou yiit, ho;;;;;,' to reasonftSU-U-hUl:^U:5. You are too timid in iro*ing your inferen

"r.,i"#1#stands, here, for the typical reader or aetective?ffi; #"ffilGG";;;:;;deal of information (:*=)_uu, is unable io rnterpret them, neglects them,or misinterprets therii.Tii is why the denouement of mystery stories is soexciting: we are finaily tho.wn

how neglectful we were and discover that allthe information we needed to solve ttr". *yrr".y was given to us. Now ret ussee al l the informat ion Holmes is able to nnO in the hat:

He picked it up and gazed at it in the pecuhar introspective fashion which wascharacteristic of him. "It is perhaps ress suggestive than-it might have been,,,he remarked, "and yet there are a'few inferences which are very distinct, and afew others which represent at least a strong. balance ;i;;;;;it,;. tnu, ,r,.man was highly intellectual is of course obvrous upon the face of it, and arsoth.at he was fairly well_to_do within the last three y"urr, uf*,ougf, he hu, no*fallen upon "'t,

ollr^.-l-: had tqlgglt, Uut tu, t"r. nolvliun"rorrn"rry,pointing to a morar retrogressioilff i fr, when taken with rhe decline in hisfortunes, seems to indicati some evil influence, probabry drink, at work uponhim. This may account atso for !he.qb_vje_ui_fgst,t"het_Iis_wife..ias.c=cased'Jgl9yshr-u ' ' He has, however, ."tuin"-o ion." o'.!.". of self-respect,,, he continued,disregarding my remonstrance. ,,He is a m-an who leads_*gq.qtur), I iI", go",out rittre, is out of training entirerv, is middre-aged:;;;g#iE-ffii'wrrich hehas had cut within the rait few days, and which he anoints with l ime-cream.These are the more patenr facrs which are to be deduced fr.. hi;-#. Also, bythe way' that i t is extremery improbabre that he has gas la id on in his house., ,(1975:160)

To all this Watson replies, ,,you are certainly joking, Holmes.,, Holmesthen proceeds to show watson how he urriu"c at his conclusions, a crassicexample of semiotic analysis at work.

- To simplify matters ret me offer a chart which l ists the characteristics(or signifieds) and offers the explanations ior signifiers).


Holmes' Semiotic Analysis of the Hat in "The Blue Carbuncle"

Characteristics of the ManSignil ieds

Reasoning Behind the DeductionsSignifiers

Man was intellectual

Decline in lortunes

Foresight

Moral retrogression

Recent haircut

Uses l ime-creamGoes out little

Wife stopped loving him

Out of training

No gas in the house

Cubic capacity of the hat. "A man with so large abrain must have something in it."

Hat is three years old, ol best quality, with ribbedsilk bank and excellent l ining, But the man hasn'tbeen able to afford a new one.Man had a hai-securer put on hat by specialorder since hats don't come with them.

Broken elaslic on hat-securer and hasn'treolaced it.Hair ends, clean cut by the scissors of a barber,stuck to lower end of hat lining.

Smell of l ining.Dust on hat is brown housedust, not gray streetdust, so hung up most of the time.

--- ..*Hat hasn't been brushed for weeks,

Much moisture. . . pergpiration indicates not ingood shape.Wax stains from candles suggest he reads bycandlelight and doesn't have gas.

Watson's reply to all this is "ingenious," and so it is.After Holmes explains his reasoning, it all seems very simple and quite

reasonable. Watson saw everything that Holmes did but Watson paid noattention to all the signs that were presented to him, in part because ftethought that what he saw was trivial and of no importance. What Watsonlacked was methodology (semiotics, semiology) and an appreciation of tlg

impo-4eq-cS.bj-!a€,*i!b!i lnqig,n-i-flcant plrengmgla. What semiology does isto take the matter of sign interpretation, which is nothing new, and make itmore systematic and scientific. Because signs may lie and because therelationship that exists between a signifier and signified is arbitrary,interpreting signs involves a good deal of skill. Holmes is a good examplefor us; he shows how much there is to see and know if we only can learnhow to look.

-r- ."- j i " , . . " / ' " , , , - .v. 'n.{-- t

SIGNS IN CONTEMPORARY CULTURE : -

Documents

Transcript of SIGNS IN CONTEMPORARY CULTURE : -