SEMIOTIC AND THE TRIANGLES OF MEANING - Onyeji Nnaji

                                   

             

                     

Semiotics is the linguistic approach to the analysis of language through signs and their representatives. Semiotics analysis is the extension of the structural approach to language analysis at the level where words are brought to the experimental table referred to as the triangle of meaning. The concept was introduced by Ogden and Richard1 to re-examine the relationship between a word, its symbol and the referent. The idea was first established by Ferdinand de Saussure in Linguistic General. Saussure believes that linguistic sign consists of a signifier and a signified. He goes further to establish that the sound made has no meaning of its own save for the symbol or image conceptually created for the sign to mean. That is to say that there is no apparent relationship between the signified and its signifier except what our mental faculty has as an image for the signified.

Ogden and Richard discussed this relationship between the signifier and signified. These men introduced semiotic triangle to establish the relationship in a diagram. Their idea in semiotic triangle does not differ much from Saussure’s view of the signifier and the signified. It was rather an extended and elaborative study on the relationship between signs and their referents. To enhance understanding, Ogden and Richard represented the information in a simple diagram; a triangle-comprising symbol, conceptual reference and the referent.

                           
After Ogden and Richards’ study of the meaning of meaning; semiotic triangle underwent further clarification in the works of other linguists. The triangle was re-examined by Agbedo². He represented “symbol” with “form”, linking it up with the conceptual meaning of “words”, thereby establishing an external arrow to show how direct the form (symbol) relates with concept but indirectly with the referent. Agbedo is of the same opinion with Lyons³. In this view, the dotted line between the form and the referent is to show that “the relationship between them is direct”. Agbedo believes that the form is related to its referent through the mediating (conceptual) meaning associated with the both, independently.

Lyons, cited by Agbedo, reveals the same condition about the triangle as did palmer⁴ and Nwala⁵ by establishing that the dotted line indicates “independent” relation of the form and the referent. Nwala believes that the dotted line shows that “there is no direct link between the symbol and the referent”. Nwala has his own diagram to prove his claim. Nevertheless, by “independence”, Agbedo appears to uncover the interconnectivity of the form and the referent as brought about by the meaning (concept) at the position where the different angles meet at the top. Generally, they are of the same view that a symbolic representation of an object can never refer directly to objects, except through concepts within the mind. Therefore, the link at the base level of the triangle is an implied relationship, not a direct one. That was what Ogden and Richard tried to establish in The Meaning of Meaning. It has much to do with the abstract understanding of what the speaker or writer wants his audience to know. 

Semiotic triangle continuous to undergo a continuous analytical extension as it passes through the experimental observation in the hands of philologists. Recent observations prove that the triangle can be extended beyond one in the view to analysing reference and its referent. By this I mean the recent discovering by john F. Sowa⁶ and many others which prove that the triangle can be extended to achieve further analysis. Sowa asserts that another triangle can be achieved when the analysis of the speaker’s word is extended. Below is the example of what Sowa meant.

Sowa means that meaning triangle can be linked side by side to represent signs of signs. Using the diagram above, for example, downward is the triangle of the original or tradition semiotic, which relates to the object. By staking another triangle on top reveals the concept of representing an object by a concept. The upper triangle relates the notion that suggests the concept of “cat” to the symbol, which is the printable symbol for the more elusive notion excitation. At the topmost is the cloud of the notion excitation that occurs when someone recognises that the symbols is being represented by a pointed object, cat.

Sowa traced semiotics to where it belongs: the Aristotelians. Aristotle observed that symbols could symbolise other symbols; just as written words are symbols of the spoken ones. Pierce⁷ went further to recognise that multiple triangles could be linked together in different ways by attracting a vertex of another. Nnaji⁸ believes and affirmed this view.

Sampling suonuuti⁹ and Sowa’s observations, reconciling them with Pierce’s assertion of the linkage, Nnaji suggests that much more triangles can be achieved and, still being driven by the original symbol. Nnaji draws his analysis down to the perception of the symbols of terms in Igbo language. A situation where a symbol may represent more than one term in different languages/dialects was expatiated here by Nnaji. He uses rat to establish his discovering.  Rat represents two similar objects in the English language and is represented with two different names in Igbo language. If the speaker of English says “rat”, to an Igbo audience, the speaker is seen to mean either oke or ewi to the Igbo audience. Therefore, the concept of the images’ (object) representation in both the speaker and the audience could produce multiple triangles under the umbrella of the traditional triangle. This he represents below.

The cloud at the apex, Nnaji believes, is the general reference to the object rat. However, the possibility is there for double meaning of the object in the perception of the audience, pending when the speaker clarifies the audience of the species of rat he meant; whether the sise found in the homes or the bigger ones in the bush (ewi). By this, Nnaji believes that the speaker manipulates the sensation of his audience. He explicated this in the article he entitled Reflectionary Graph.

Nnaji represented in graphic form, the diagram of Frege’s¹⁰ observation of the semiotic extension. Frege sampled the term “morning star” and “evening star”.  Both terms refer to one term; the planet venues, but their senses are caught differently. One means the star seen in the morning while the other means the star seen in the evening. But the terms are distinct signs that create different concepts in the mind of the listeners. Frege believes that both concepts stand for the same object, but with respect to different grounds, which in turn depends on the time of the observation. All these renovations on the traditional triangle are in the attempt to establish meaning resulting from the relationship between the reference and its referent, sign and its meaning.

According to Nnaji’s assertion in the Reflectionary Graph, he holds that in a speech medium, the speaker holds higher stand over the real meaning of his spoken words. This is because he speaks to pass across his intended information whose understanding depends largely on how specific he is. To this effect he asserts that the speaker manipulates the faculty of his audience. According to him, “a speaker who speaks on generic reference is bound to create several connotative meaning in his audience’s faculty. He will hardly come into term with his audience except he specifies the specie of thing he means”. He gave example with a rat, the planet and light. All these have species and brands or specific names they are known for. For better understanding, he advised,

The speaker that should define or codify which of the terms he meant. Eg. Rat= giant rat and ordinary rat, planet= mercury, venues, mass, Earth etc. And light could be codified thus: candle light, electric light, stove light, sun, moon, star light etc. The speaker that uses any of these terms is advised to be rather specific than generic, because the possibility lies for double meaning of the referent in the perception of the audience.

Traditional semantics believe that things are created by words. They adopted two ways of naming things. One is by direct reference, while the other is by associated reference. Direct meaning or reference involves the physical identification of the object. Through this identifiable means the object is given a name. While in associated meaning or reference, we refer to the thing in our imaginary faculty. Associated meaning does not deal with factual meaning; instead the name is given according to its relative position to the object in our memory (mind). Associated meaning derives its authenticity from our mind perception about the object in focus.

The referent refers to the object in question, but when the object is not present (physical), the name or image is recorded in the memory as a concept. In like manner, the name or image may be put down in writing as a form. Therefore, because it is not a direct representation, the relationship between the form and its physical object, referent, is said to be indirect. The dotted line at the base of the triangle represents the indirect reference between the form and its referent.

According to Nwala, meaning is not stable; there is no universally accepted definition of meaning. The concept of meaning in every given context has much to do with, and concerns itself with what the speaker or writer intends to mean and what his audience interprets them to mean. That was why Yule¹¹ maintains that the focal point should be on what the word used means ordinarily rather than the meaning which the speaker or writer may intend to mean in a particular context or occasion. Yule tries to consider meaning at the level where the speaker and his audience would come to term. Considering meaning at the ordinary level as Yule suggested, contextual meaning and referential meaning may be ruled out, and then everything becomes factual.

Meanwhile, considering Lyons, Nwala states that meaning is not definite. He observes that distinctions are, however, made between emoted and cognitive, significant and signified, performative and descriptive sense and reference, denotative and connotative, and symbol, extension and intention, implication entailment and presuppositions, analytic and symbolic. He therefore concludes that the definition of meaning is allusive and intractable. This is because different theories exist which question the basic to the understanding of the process through which meaning is determined, or the attempt to proffer definition to terms. These theories shall be considered below with clarifications drawn from the diagrams above. 

            The Referential Theory of Meaning:

This theory points to the meaning of objects according to their represented symbols. It points to the idea that the meaning of any expression must have a direct reference to objects or entity which the form refers to. Although, there may not be any direct relationship or connection existing between the object and its form as one may have presupposed. The theory also believes that there would be the possibility of an indirect relationship that exist in the imaginary faculty.

The idea behind referential meaning is that the form stands the symbol of an object whose existence is represented by the object it tends to refer to. It could be direct when it involves physical object, then indirect when it refers to the imaginary object in the human faculty.

            Mental Theory:

This theory believes that the meaning of words or an expression is a function of the mental idea represented by such word or expression in the mind of the audience or the readers. The theorists argued that it is not every word or expression that has real object they represent, but the meaning has generated as reality from the intended meaning we decide to give them in our mental faculty.

According to Glucksbery and Danks, one of the proponents of mentalist theory: the set of any possible meaning of any given word is the set of the possible feelings, images, ideas, concepts, thought and reference which a person might conjure and produce when the very word is heard. That expression depends largely on the outcome of the imaginary faculty of either the speaker or writer and the audience. The objects referred to, in many cases, dwells in the imaginary faculty and at times refer to the characteristics of the object in the mental picture; not as an ordinary object. This theory employs the figure of speech, metaphor, to reveal its meaning. It does not exactly refer to the object in symbol but the mental point for which the object is known.

            Contextual or Operational Theory:

These theorists believe that no word or expression has definite meaning that covers it’s every time’s usage, instead, the meaning deduced from any expression made or word used depends on the circumstance surrounding the use of the word. This means that different meanings are derived from words on different occasions or context of use.

The proponents of the contextual theory maintain that a word cannot be tied down to represent one form of symbol or entity. It is rather its contextual or operational meaning that gives definition to the word. They believe that different usages give different definitions to words.

            Componential Theory:

According to Crystal, componential theory concerns itself with the use of common component and features of a word in order to derive the textual meaning of the word. This is so because of the presence of the natural identifiable features that marks out the lexical item which makes it a useful analytical tool. In componential theory the definition given or meaning derived from a word depend on the relationship of the word to the general meaning which they could infer collectively. A word does not depend on the meaning found inside itself but in its componential values.

To distinguish lexical item in a sentence and to determine the meaning of a word, the commonest approach is the use of binary operation, otherwise known as binary contrast [plus (+) or minus (-) ]. With this, the presence of a given semantic feature will reveal the absence of another semantic feature. Take for instance the representation of animal of the same specie as sighted below. Example:

Example             Ewe                   Lamb                 Ram

Animal	+	+	+
Young	-	+	-
Adult	+	-	+
Male	-	+-	+
Female	+	+-	-

Propounded semantic theories are however not selective in the study and the understanding of meaning. But they assist in drawing a reconcilable proof towards understanding semantic and the meaning of words as a representative of their terms and symbols.

The term still undergoes a continuum analytical extension as it wheels through the experimental observation in the hands of language analysts. Much samples have been given in this work with substantiating diagrams and the analysis capable of giving a beginner insight into the course and concept of meaning upon words, both as a term and when combined into a structure. Added is the extension carried out on the meaning triangle by the terminologist, Suonuuti. He created another dimension through angle bisectors whose intersection created the relationships that projected the triangle to adapt the form of a pyramid. At this terminal point, Suonuuti achieves another term (definition) while the traditional terms, concept and object remain untouched.

The definition is dependent on the degree of relationship between concepts. The result in formulating a definition with the help of other systems as implied in this approach is the definition of a new concept using other concepts already known. This concept then results a new mental image for the beginner in a subject field. For instance, the term “lamb” or “chicken” foregrounds a general image in our minds. The image is that of a young sheep or hen concretised at the object (referent) level. Now, the fact that the terms are both (+) or (-) to actually define their sexes remains very bizarre until each of their sexes are defined through specific reference. To give the definitions, each brings another concept which becomes definite at the level of the definition. At this point (definition) the terms are given concrete names each according to their sexes; viz, a male lamb or a female lamb. Definition therefore, creates a connotative intersecting relationship between terms & objects, and concepts & objects. By the definition, the (+) or (-) symbol separates to create a complete meaning to the beginner about the animals’ sexes.

Suonuuti maintains that by adding affixes and other morphological changes, the combination of terms with the help of prepositions, new terms are discovered. The definition of the resulting terms (intended to be) is already implied in the term by relations indicated by preposition and specific affixes. The object is the hardest to tackle because it is filtered through one’s perception of the object with the natural senses.

Semiotic triangle as an analytical tool for the understanding of the supposed relationship between physical objects in the world and thoughts is a simple principle. The concept allies the study of objects using language analysis at the level of syntax, words/expressions and their referent meaning. Here a word is not only thought for its meaning but as a basic to both language and literary analysis. Analysis begins at the level of the word, phrase, clause and sentences to the level of both the paragraphs and possibly, a text. Words are indispensable in the analysis or/and in the determination of meaning in every expression. They carry and reveal the culture in the language. When collected in bundle, articulated and carefully applied, creativity is achieved.

REFERENCES.

(1) Ogden and Richard. The meaning of Meaning. New York: Brace and world, 1923.

(2) Agbedo, C.U. General Linguistics: An Introductory Reader. Nsukka: ACE Resource, 2000. 

(3)Lyons (1968) in Agbedo, General Linguistics: An Introductory Reader. Nsukka: ACE          Resource, 2000.

(4) Palma (1988) in Nwala. Introduction to Linguistics a First Course. Abakaliki:Wisdom       Publisher Ltd, 2004

(5)Nwala M. A. Introduction to Linguistics a First Course. Abakaliki: Wisdom publisher          Ltd, 2004

(6)Sowa J.F (etd) Conceptual Graph . American: NCTS, 1998.

(7) Pierce, Charles. “On the Algebra of Logic,” American Journal of Mathematics.Vol.7,           (pp.180-202), 1885.

(8)Onyeji Nnaji. Reflectionary Graph. Essay written in Defence of a project work submitted to M.A. Nwala, a lecturer in the Department of Languages and Linguistics, Ebonyi         State University Abakaliki, 2008.

(9)Suonuuti.The Terminologists Additional Dimension to the Semiotic Triangle. 1997.

(10)Frege, Gottlob. English Translation.(edt) J. Van. Cambridge: Harvard University Pres,     1967.

(11)George Yule. The Study of Language. Cambridge. 2003.

Ferdinand De Saussure. “Course de Linguistic Gènêrale”. (edt) W. Baskin. asCourse in          Linguistics General. New York: Philosophical Binary, 1959.

 Sowa, J.F. Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational          Foundations. Pacific Grove: Broots Cole, 2000.