Abstract
It is generally believed that Chinese modern semiotics started only in the 1980s, and it is just over 30 years old so far. At first, “the focus of Chinese researchers was mainly on the thoughts of such well-known semiotics scholars as Saussure, Peirce, Morris, Barthes and Bakhtin” (Wang 2004: 484). With the deepening of their research, Chinese scholars’ innovative achievements have become increasingly rich, and some ideas have attracted the high attention of their peers at home and abroad. In this chapter, we will mainly investigate the basic trends of development of Chinese modern semiotics in the past 30 years through the introduction and analysis of three representative works of Chinese semiotics, namely, Introduction to Theoretical Semiotics by Li Youzheng, Modern Linguistic Semiotics by Wang Mingyu and Semiotics: Principles and Problems by Zhao Yiheng.
This chapter was originally written by Meng Hua and was revised by the author of this book.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Li Youzheng believes that Peirce belongs to the semiotic tradition of communication theory: “Peirce’s general mark concept and logical direction effectively exclude any mark concept of linguistics. As a result, the studies on the communication aspect of the mark process or mark behavior overwhelmingly suppress the studies on the signification function of mark” (Li 2007: 33).
- 2.
“The signified of signs is essentially a ‘signified domain,’ that is, a state in which it hovers between the present, the real, the conceptual and the semantic. Only by doing so can the problem of generic signs arise. (1) A word sign, when stuck on an article to become the label of the article, refers to an object at presence. (2) If we take off the label and let people imagine or find the corresponding object in reality according to the label, the absent corresponding object represented by the label is the signified object in reality. (3) If this label concerning a certain object becomes a generic name of a common concept and no longer represents a specific object, then it is a conceptual signified object. (4) If we stick the word ‘apple’ on banana, this mistake cannot change the nature of banana, because the nature of this label is ultimately determined by the object. But in some cases, it is just the opposite—the nature of an object is determined by its label. For example, a toilet, when labeled with the sign ‘male,’ is a male toilet, and when labeled with ‘female,’ becomes a female toilet. The same is true of some highly homogeneous commodities. The difference between them can only be made through labels (trademarks or advertisements)—the nature of the signified object is not determined by the object itself but by the making of the sign system. The toilet or commodity determined and distinguished by the sign system is the semantic object” (Meng 2014: 81).
- 3.
Saussure distinguishes langue and parole, internal and external linguistics, and claims that the external elements of langue and parole are heterogeneous, non-systematic and substantial, while the internal elements are formal. Saussure’s semiotics of “form” and “substance” and their differences provide a theoretical premise for the “integrated view,” because the concept of “integration” is based on the principle of distinction. If there is no sufficient description of the differences between “form” and “substance,” there is no basis for the “integration.” Saussure’s semiotics, however, is in a direction of “separation”: “My definition of language presupposes the exclusion of everything that is outside its organism or system-in a word, of everything known as ‘external linguistics’” (Saussure 1980: 43).
- 4.
Meng Hua argues that “the signified of signs is essentially a signified domain.” This domain mainly includes four levels: object in presence, object in existence, conceptual object and semantic object. According to the decreasing degree of formalization, the order should be semantic object, conceptual object, object in existence and object in presence (Meng 2014: 29).
- 5.
“Super-sign level” here is mainly a concept of “parole” signs opposite to “langue” signs, and it is related to “super-signs” in this part, as they both focus on heterogeneity and substantiality of signs. Yet there are also differences: “super-sign level” focuses on Saussure’s parole; “super-signs” focuses on the transition, transfer, correlation and boundary between linguistic and non-linguistic signs, as well as different heterogenic signs.
- 6.
“Signifier and signified are not a fixed one-to-one relation but have tensions between them. Signs in one hierarchy that can produce meaning, or signs as a whole will transform their role in a new context; thus, they become new signifiers, and then new corresponding signified appear. So far, words in different hierarchies are endowed with dual meanings” (Wang 2013: 451).
- 7.
“The semantic meaning of tenor and vehicle contains a borrowed motivation and forms a paradigm for the speaker to choose from on the basis of transferable motivation, and the characteristic that constitutes this paradigm is similarity” (Wang 2013: 476).
- 8.
Mainstream Chinese works on semiotics at that time include: Yu Jianzhang (俞建章) and Ye Shuxian (叶舒宪). Signs: Language and Art (《符号:语言与艺术》). 1985; He Xin (何新). Signs as Art Phenomenon—Culturology Explained (《艺术现象的符号——文化学阐释》). 1987; Xiao Feng (肖峰). Study Signs from the Perspective of Philosophy (《从哲学看符号》). 1989; Yang Chunshi (杨春时). Art Symbols and Explanations (《艺术符号与解释》) (1989); Wang Desheng (王德胜). Scientific Semiotics (《科学符号学》). 1992; Wang Hongqi,(王红旗). Mysterious Signs in Life (《生活中的神秘符号》). 1992; Yang Xiliang (杨习良). Rhetorical Semiotics (《修辞符号学》). 1993; Liu Yunzhang (刘云章). Introduction to Mathematic Semiotics (《数学符号学概论》). 1993; Ding Ersu (丁尔苏). Beyond Noumenon (《超越本体》). 1994; Zhou Xiaofeng (周晓风). Semiotic Aesthetic of Modern Poetry. 1995; Lian Fu (连甫). Signs in Your Life: Semiotics ABC (《你身边的符号:符号学入门》). 1997; Wu Wenhu (吴文虎). Symbolic World in Advertisements (《广告的符号世界》). 1997; Qi Xiaobin (齐效斌). Cultural Signs in Records of the Historian (《 < 史记 > 文化符号论》). 1998; Gou Zhixiao (苟志效). Meaning and Signs (《意义与符号》). 1999; Liu Zhi (刘智). News Culture and Signs (《新闻文化与符号》). 1999; Meng Hua (孟华). Principles of Symbolization (《符号表达原理》). 1999; New Horizons in Language and Semiotics in China Edited by Chen Zhi’an (陈治安) and Liu Jiarong (刘家荣). 1999. Source: Linguistic Semiotics (Wang Mingyu 2004: 492, Higher Education Press).
- 9.
“Part I: Principles reviews all patterns of semiotics and tries to learn widely from others’ strong points. Study of semiotics at present, however, inherits more of Peirce’s pattern rather than Saussure’s, which should not be avoided mentioning” (Zhao 2011: 14).
- 10.
In short, “form” means inner structural elements and rules of sign systems while “substance” means outer elements (subject, object, context, etc.). Sign system is a synthesis of form and substance. Formal semiotics eliminates entity elements as much as possible; however, while researching on the influence the elements of substance have on sign system, ontological semiotics also deals with the relationship between substance and form dialectically.
- 11.
“The sensible part of sign is named ‘representamen’ by Peirce” (Zhao 2011, 97).
- 12.
Peirce’s definition of sign is: “A sign, or representamen, is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity. It addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for something, it is object. It stands for that object, not in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea”.
- 13.
Peirce points out that “Consider what effects, which might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object” (Tu 2006: 22).
- 14.
I name this truth value “substantial correlation,” and the distinction of semantic object, conceptual object, actual object and present object shows the increase and decrease of this correlation (Meng 2014: 27–29).
- 15.
“The function becomes pervaded with meaning. This semantization is inevitable: as soon as there is a society, every usage is converted into a sign of itself; the use of a raincoat is to give protection from the rain, but this use cannot be dissociated from the very signs of an atmospheric situation” (Barthes 1999: 32).
- 16.
Symbolic physical sign is the physical sign of entity-name relation, “it is the co-presence of word and object and word becomes the signified or defining metalanguage of the object, the leading code is physical sign rather than word”; Explanatory physical sign is the physical sign of name-entity relation, “it is the co-presence of word but word becomes lead or signifier and object is referred to or becomes signified. Object is written or encoded by word” (Meng 2014: 353).
- 17.
Symbolic physical sign means “entity becomes signifier of all kinds of signs” rather than signified (Meng 2014: 355).
- 18.
Presence and absence are the objective correlates to filled and empty intentions. An empty intention is an intention that targets something that is not there, something absent, something not present to the one who intends. A filled intention is one that targets something that is there, in its bodily presence, before the one who intends. (Sokolowski 2009: 33).
- 19.
See Semiotic Fields edited by Tang Xiaolin (唐小林)& Zhu Dong (祝东), Sichaun University Press, 2012.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Peking University Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wang, M. (2020). Representative Works of Chinese Semiotic Studies. In: Linguistic Semiotics. Peking University Linguistics Research, vol 3. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3246-7_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-3245-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-3246-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)