Semiotics of distinctions, in which every sign acquires

its meaning by way of its distinctiveness as

SILVER RATTASEPP and KALEVI KULL
related to other signs within the same system.
University of Tartu, Estonia
As a consequence, de Saussure limits sign
action within the realm of culture.
Contemporary usage of the term semiotics Earlier, however, Charles S. Peirce had
is derived from John Lockes Essay Concern- proposed a more general definition of signs,
ing Human Understanding (1690), which founded on convention conceived as a for-
presents the requirement for a science that mation of habit, and divided into numerous
would study the signs the mind makes use classifications, of which the distinction
of in acquiring knowledge. However, the between icons, indexes, and symbols has
concept semeiotics also existed in Greek, to become the most widespread. Referring to
denote the study of medical symptoms and the modes or mechanisms by which habit-
natural signs. The key difference with latter ual sign usages are acquired, icons refer to
development of semiotics is the absence, in the relation of similarity or resemblance,
Greek thought, of a notion of sign that would indexes refer to the relation of correlation
be applicable beyond the natureculture or causality, and symbols to relations based
binary. Such a general notion of signs on conventions, that is, the dispositions or
was introduced by Augustine of Hippo factitious habits of their users. The sign is,
(354430). Nevertheless, it was not until the in this instance, not an object in itself, but
late nineteenth century that semiotics began a set of conditions that have to be met in
to develop as a separate branch of the sci- order for processes of meaning to appear
ences. The two leading figures and founders and which, furthermore, require processes of
of contemporary semiotics were Charles habit formation. Unlike de Saussures model,
Sanders Peirce (18391914) and especially which was patterned after language, Peirce
Ferdinand de Saussure (18571913); the took a pragmatic or phenomenological route,
posthumous publication in 1916 of the lat- defining a sign as cognizable, as something
ters Cours de linguistique gnrale (Course that can be experienced. Also unlike de Saus-
in General Linguistics) laid the groundwork sure, who proposed a binary conception of
for much of twentieth-century semiotics in signs, Peirces was a threefold one, comprising
the West. of an object, an interpretant, and a represen-
De Saussure proposed a science of semi- tamen. A sign is determined by something
ology to cover the study of all arbitrary sign other than itself, called its object, but which,
relations, which would be patterned after on the other hand, determines some mind
linguistic signs. He posited a dyadic or binary or knower, called the interpretant, so that
model for semiological analysis, consisting the interpretation of the object is related by
of linguistic terms, called signifiers, and way of a mediator, called the representamen.
their conventional relation to cognitive states, A sign is thus something which stands for
called signifieds. Language conceived as the somebody or something in some respect or
full set of such arbitrary and therefore con- capacity. With these general conceptions of
ventional sign relations is thus a total system sign action, Peirce laid the foundation for an
The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Consumption and Consumer Studies, First Edition.
Edited by Daniel Thomas Cook and J. Michael Ryan.
2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118989463.wbeccs205
2 SEM IOTICS

understanding of semiosis that would not be By the early twenty-first century, semi-
limited to human culture. otics had generally replaced semiology as
Picking up on this theme, in 1963 Thomas the name for the discipline, and emphasis
A. Sebeok, a linguist and a biologist, intro- has slowly shifted from the static, binary,
duced zosemiotics as the study of animal and linguistic model of de Saussure toward
semiosis. In addition to Peirce, this devel- the more encompassing and dynamic, tri-
opment became heavily based on the adic model of Peirce. Another development
Umwelttheorie of the German-Estonian is the understanding that the sciences as
biologist Jakob von Uexkll (18641944) based on experimental control of its objects
and the theory of semiosphere developed by depend fundamentally on the prior critical
Juri Lotman (1990; 2009/1992). An Umwelt or conceptual control of objectification that
(a concept usually retained in its original would provide the framework within which
German form in English-language texts) sciences proper operate. Semiotics, the study
refers to the experienced, meaningful world of the action of signs, is the science of the
of an organism, based on that organisms latter. In consequence semiotics is necessar-
species-specific capacities for perception ily an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary
and action. Umwelt, the lived, sensed, rec- perspective that requires input from more
ognized world of an organism, comprises specialized sciences, and studies the premises
those aspects of the environment that the and assumptions, the habits and methods that
organism is capable of perceiving, which establish the boundaries of these sciences but
are then rendered into capacities of action which often go unnoticed within those sci-
or behavior toward those aspects. The envi- ences themselves. In general, semiotics serves
ronmental objects which the organism can both as a theoretical and methodological tool
perceive and thus relate to take on a certain for the scientific study of cultural and living
tone, a meaning for that organism. Humans, (communicative) systems.
too, have their particular Umwelten, and Semiotics of culture as a major branch in
hence biosemiotics is a comparative study of semiotics owes much to the TartuMoscow
meaning in human and nonhuman worlds. school of semiotics, which was initiated
This fruitful fusion of Peircean semiotics by Juri Lotman (19221993). The aim of
and Uexkllian biosemiotics led Sebeok to semiotics of culture is to study the whole
propose the thesis that since all living enti- set of sign systems that organize culture,
ties incorporate a species-specific model of including arts, media, everyday behavior, and
their environment by means of signification material culture. The entirety of the cultural
and communication by signs, semiosis is field comprises a semiosphere, a relational
coextensive with life. field of interconnected semiotic phenom-
The academic institutionalization of semi- ena, characterized by various dynamical
otics started to become more widespread processes, such as those between the center
from the 1960s onward, with the first major and the periphery of any given semiosphere,
centers established in Paris, Bologna, Bloom- as well as cross-border communication and
ington, Moscow, and Tartu. The International translation between different semiospheres.
Association for Semiotic Studies was estab- Since sign relations are acquired or learnt
lished in 1969. The oldest journals in the field relations, they are therefore also modeling
are Sign Systems Studies (initially Trudy po relations. They serve as modeling relations
znakovym sistemam, established in 1964) and because a learnt relation can work as a sign
Semiotica (established in 1969). relation only if it is about some particular
 SEM IOTICS 3

existing regularity or recognizable difference, remaining in the position of a supposedly

that is, there cannot be learning without some impartial observer.
regularity to be learned. Accordingly, cultural An early and influential example of con-
sign systems are modeling systems that carry sumer studies from a semiotic perspective
within themselves an acquired system of is Jean Baudrillards now-classic early work,
distinctions and discriminations. such as The System of Objects (1996/1968) and
Analyses of consumer culture, such as The Consumer Society (1997/1970), according
those of brand communication, consumer to which any analysis of the objects of con-
behavior, marketing, identity formation, sumption needs to be a study of the discourse
and visual language, are a staple of cultural about objects. Needs and desires, and their
and media semiotics. Necessarily, the world means of gratification, are symbolically or
of consumption is a web spun of various discursively constructed, and consumption
meanings, codes, and symbols, all further- is used to place the consumer within the
more embedded in a particular historical symbolic field of the society. The system of
and cultural context. The goal of the semiotic objects is a system of symbolic goods that
approach to consumption is to pick apart consumers use to signify themselves for the
those elements of interpretation which, for society.
everyday consumers, may seem obvious A thorough overview of further semiotic
and immediate, but which in fact consist developments in consumption and consumer
of layers of meaning making of a highly studies is provided by Mick et al. (2004). The
complex nature. Applied semiotic analysis most pertinent issue has been to develop
reveals the (often hidden) codes by which explanatory frameworks for conceptualizing
the object of analysis is constructed: the the types of sign relations that constitute a
relational structure of the object or phe- products potential meanings. For example,
nomenon that is responsible for its role and the influence on consumers of various signs
dynamics in an organization, including, for may be based on recognition, comprehen-
instance, that of consumers behavior and sion, learning, memory, and appreciation
preferences or values. Since semiotics studies (aesthetic reactions) (Mick et al. 2004, 13).
the underlying conditions and premises of Such analysis extends to the level of prod-
meaning making, it also eschews entrenched ucts, brands, and marketing (see also Danesi
dichotomies, such as those between fact 2008; Rossolatos 2014; Williamson 1998).
and value, for example, perceiving both As in many other branches of semiotics,
as premised upon a prior construction of the Peircean and Saussurean schools are
meaning (of objectivation). relatively distinct in consumer semiotics.
As a result, a key element of the semiotic The Saussurean paradigm (as developed by
approach to consumer culture is the shift of Louis Hjelmslev and Algirdas Julius Greimas)
focus from individual decision making and has focused on structural interpretation
individualized examples of consumer culture, of textual meanings, with the purpose of
toward an analysis of dynamical cultural identifying potential meanings of objects of
interaction and communicative phenomena. consumer culture. The Peircean paradigm has
An important corollary to this, however, is focused on providing conceptual analyses for
that a semiotic study of consumer culture the development of theoretical frameworks
must also analyze the first-person perspec- for studying consumer culture. The fruitful
tive of consumers and their subjective and cooperation of these two major paradigms is
intersubjective meaning making, rather than a present goal of general semiotics.
4 SEM IOTICS

Beginning from the 1990s, semiotic meth- Rossolatos, George. 2014. Brand Equity Planning
ods have been used in commercial semiotics with Structuralist Rhetorical Semiotics. Kassel,
by companies providing semiotic consul- Germany: Kassel University Press.
Williamson, Judith. 1998. Decoding Advertise-
tancy, one of the first among which was the
ments: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising.
UK-based company Semiotic Solutions. London: Marion Boyars.
SEE ALSO: Barthes, Roland; Cultural Studies;
Emotions and Consumption; Methods of FURTHER READING
Consumer Research; Needs and Wants; Berger, Arthur A. 2010. The Objects of Affection:
Symbolic Value Semiotics and Consumer Culture. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Cobley, Paul, ed. 2010. The Routledge Companion
REFERENCES
to Semiotics. London: Routledge.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1996/1968. The System of Objects. Danesi, Marcel. 2002. Understanding Media Semi-
London: Verso. otics. London: Oxford University Press.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1997/1970. The Consumer Soci- Holbrook, Morris B., and Elizabeth C. Hirschman.
ety: Myths and Structures. London: Sage. 1993. The Semiotics of Consumption: Interpreting
Danesi, Marcel. 2008. Why it Sells: Decoding the Symbolic Consumer Behavior in Popular Culture
Meanings of Brand Names, Logos, Ads, and Other and Works of Art. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Marketing and Advertising Ploys. Lanham, MD: Krampen, Martin, Klaus Oehler, Roland Posner,
Rowman & Littlefield. Thomas A. Sebeok, and Thure von Uexkll, eds.
Lotman, Juri. 1990. Universe of the Mind: A Semi- 1987. Classics of Semiotics. New York: Plenum
otic Theory of Culture. London: I.B. Tauris. Press.
Lotman, Juri. 2009/1992. Culture and Explosion. Nth, Winfried. 1998. The Language of Com-
Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. modities: Groundwork for a Semiotics of
Mick, David Glen, James E. Burroughs, Partick Consumer Goods. In European Perspectives on
Hetzel, and Mary Yoko Brannen. 2004. Pursu- Consumer Behaviour, edited by M. Lambkin, G.
ing the Meaning of Meaning in the Commer- Foxall, F. van Raaij, and B. Heilbrunn, 354369.
cial World: An International Review of Market- London: Prentice Hall.
ing and Consumer Research Founded on Semi- Sebeok, Thomas A. 1994. Signs: An Introduction to
otics. Semiotica 152(1/4): 174. Semiotics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.