Roland Barthes (1964)

Elements of Semiology
Source: Elements of Semiology, 1964, publ. Hill and Wang, 1968.
The first half of the book is reproduced here.
INTRODUCTION
In his Course in General Linguistics, first published in 1916, Saussure
postulated the eistence of a general science of signs, or Se!iolog", of
#hich linguistics #ould for! onl" one part. Se!iolog" therefore ai!s to
take in an" s"ste! of signs, #hate$er their substance and li!its% i!ages,
gestures, !usical sounds, ob&ects, and the co!ple associations of all
these, #hich for! the content of ritual, con$ention or public
entertain!ent' these constitute, if not languages, at least s"ste!s of
signification. There is no doubt that the de$elop!ent of !ass
co!!unications confers particular rele$ance toda" upon the $ast field of
signif"ing !edia, &ust #hen the success of disciplines such as linguistics,
infor!ation theor", for!al logic and structural anthropolog" pro$ide
se!antic anal"sis #ith ne# instru!ents. There is at present a kind of
de!and for se!iolog", ste!!ing not fro! the fads of a fe# scholars, but
fro! the $er" histor" of the !odern #orld.
The fact re!ains that, although Saussure(s ideas ha$e !ade great
head#a", se!iolog" re!ains a tentati$e science. The reason for this !a"
#ell be si!ple. Saussure, follo#ed in this b" the !ain se!iologists,
thought that linguistics !erel" for!ed a part of the general science of
signs. )o# it is far fro! certain that in the social life of toda" there are to
be found an" etensi$e s"ste!s of signs outside hu!an language.
Se!iolog" has so far concerned itself #ith codes of no !ore than slight
interest, such as the High#a" *ode% the !o!ent #e go on to s"ste!s
#here the sociological significance is !ore than superficial, #e are once
!ore confronted #ith language. it is true that ob&ects, i!ages and patterns
of beha$iour can signif", and do so on a large scale, but ne$er
autono!ousl"% e$er" se!iological s"ste! has its linguistic ad!iture.
Where there is a $isual substance, for ea!ple, the !eaning is confir!ed
b" being duplicated in a linguistic !essage +#hich happens in the case of
the cine!a, ad$ertising, co!ic strips, press photograph", etc., so that at
least a part of the iconic !essage is, in ter!s of structural relationship,
either redundant or taken up b" the linguistic s"ste!. -s for collections of
ob&ects +clothes, food,, the" en&o" the status of s"ste!s onl" in so far as
the" pass through the rela" of language, #hich etracts their signifiers +in
the for! of no!enclature, and na!es their signifieds +in the for!s of
usages or reasons,' #e are, !uch !ore than in for!er ti!es, and despite
the spread of pictorial illustration, a ci$ilisation of the #ritten #ord.
.inall", and in !ore general ter!s, it appears increasingl" !ore difficult
to concei$e a s"ste! of i!ages and ob&ects #hose signifieds can eist
independentl" of language' to percei$e #hat a substance signifies is
ine$itabl" to fall back on the indi$iduation of a language' there is no
!eaning #hich is not designated, and the #orld of signifieds is none other
than that of language.
Thus, though #orking at the outset on nonlinguistic substances,
se!iolog" is re/uired, sooner or later, to find language +in the ordinar"
sense of the ter!, in its path, not onl" as a !odel, but also as co!ponent,
rela" or signified. 0$en so, such language is not /uite that of the linguist'
it is a second1order language, #ith its unities no longer !one!es or
phone!es, but larger frag!ents of discourse referring to ob&ects or
episodes #hose !eaning underlies language, but can ne$er eist
independentl" of it. Se!iolog" is therefore perhaps destined to be
absorbed into a trans-linguistics, the !aterials of #hich !a" be !"th,
narrati$e, &ournalis!, or on the other hand ob&ects of our ci$ilisation, in so
far as the" are spoken +through press, prospectus, inter$ie#, con$ersation
and perhaps e$en the inner language, #hich is ruled b" the la#s of
i!agination,. In fact, #e !ust no# face the possibilit" of in$erting
Saussure(s declaration' linguistics is not a part of the general science of
signs, e$en a pri$ileged part, it is se!iolog" #hich is a part of linguistics'
to be precise, it is that part co$ering the great signifying unities of
discourse. 2" this in$ersion #e !a" epect to bring to light the unit" of
the research at present being done in anthropolog", sociolog",
ps"choanal"sis and st"listics round the concept of signification.
Though it #ill doubtless be re/uired so!e da" to change its character,
se!iolog" !ust first of all, if not eactl" take definite shape, at least try
itself out, eplore its possibilities and i!possibilities. This is feasible onl"
on the basis of preparator" in$estigation. -nd indeed it !ust be
ackno#ledged in ad$ance that such an in$estigation is both diffident and
rash' diffident because se!iological kno#ledge at present can be onl" a
cop" of linguistic kno#ledge% rash because this kno#ledge !ust be
applied forth#ith, at least as a pro&ect, to non1linguistic ob&ects.
The Elements here presented ha$e as their sole ai! the etraction fro!
linguistics of anal"tical concepts, #hich #e think a priori to be
sufficientl" general to start se!iological research on its #a". In
asse!bling the!, it is not presupposed that the" #ill re!ain intact during
the course of research% nor that se!iolog" #ill al#a"s be forced to follo#
the linguistic !odel closel".( We are !erel" suggesting and elucidating a
ter!inolog" in the hope that it !a" enable an initial +albeit pro$isional,
order to be introduced into the heterogeneous !ass of significant facts. In
fact #hat #e purport to do is to furnish a principle of classification of the
/uestions.
These ele!ents of se!iolog" #ill therefore be grouped under four !ain
headings borro#ed fro! structural linguistics'
I. Language and Speech.
II. Signified and Signifier.
III. Syntagm and System.
I3. Denotation and Connotation.
It #ill be seen that these headings appear in dichoto!ic for!% the reader
#ill also notice that the binar" classification of concepts see!s fre/uent in
structural thoughts as if the !etalanguage of the linguist reproduced, like
a !irror, the binar" structure of the s"ste! it is describing% and #e shall
point out, as the occasion arises, that it #ould probabl" be $er" instructi$e
to stud" the pre1e!inence of binar" classification in the discourse of
conte!porar" social sciences. The taono!" of these sciences, if it #ere
#ell kno#n, #ould undoubtedl" pro$ide a great deal of infor!ation on
#hat !ight be called the field of intellectual i!agination in our ti!e.
I. LANGUAGE (LANGUE) AND
SPEECH
I.1. IN LINGUISTICS
I.1.1 In Saussure The +dichoto!ic, concept of language!speech is central
in Saussure and #as certainl" a great no$elt" in relation to earlier
linguistics #hich sought to find the causes of historical changes in the
e$olution of pronunciation, spontaneous associations and the #orking of
analog", and #as therefore a linguistics of the indi$idual act. In #orking
out this fa!ous dichoto!", Saussure started fro! the !ultifor! and
heterogeneous( nature of language, #hich appears at first sight as an
unclassifiable realit"( the unit" of #hich cannot be brought to light, since
it partakes at the sa!e ti!e of the ph"sical, the ph"siological, the !ental,
the indi$idual and the social. )o# this disorder disappears if, fro! this
heterogeneous #hole, is etracted a purel" social ob&ect, the s"ste!atised
set of con$entions necessar" to co!!unication, indifferent to the material
of the signals #hich co!pose it, and #hich is a language "langue#$ as
opposed to #hich speech "parole# co$ers the purel" indi$idual part of
language +phonation, application of the rules and contingent co!binations
of signs,.
I.1.. The language "langue# % language is therefore, so to speak,
language !inus speech' it is at the sa!e ti!e a social institution and a
s"ste! of $alues. -s a social institution, it is b" no !eans an act, and it is
not sub&ect to an" pre!editation. It is the social part of language, the
indi$idual cannot b" hi!self either create or !odif" it% it is essentiall" a
collecti$e contract #hich one !ust accept in its entiret" if one #ishes to
co!!unicate. 4oreo$er, this social product is autono!ous, like a ga!e
#ith its o#n rules, for it can be handled onl" after a period of learning. -s
a s"ste! of $alues, a language is !ade of a certain nu!ber of ele!ents,
each one of #hich is at the sa!e ti!e the e/ui$alent of a gi$en /uantit" of
things and a ter! of a larger function, in #hich are found, in a differential
order, other correlati$e $alues' fro! the point of $ie# of the language, the
sign is like a coin,( #hich has the $alue of a certain a!ount of goods
#hich it allo#s one to bu", but also has $alue in relation to other coins, in
a greater or lesser degree. The institutional and the s"ste!atic aspect are
of course connected' it is because a language is a s"ste! of contractual
$alues +in part arbitrar", or, !ore eactl", un!oti$ated, that it resists the
!odifications co!ing fro! a single indi$idual, and is conse/uentl" a
social institution.
I.1.!. Speech "parole# In contrast to the language, #hich is both
institution and s"ste!, speech is essentiall" an indi$idual act of selection
and actualisation% it is !ade in the first place of the (co!bination thanks to
#hich the speaking sub&ect can use the code of the language #ith a $ie#
to epressing his personal thought( +this etended speech could be called
discourse#, - and secondl" b" the (ps"cho1ph"sical !echanis!s #hich
allo# hi! to eteriorise these co!binations.( It is certain that phonation,
for instance, cannot he confused #ith the language% neither the institution
nor the s"ste! are altered if the indi$idual #ho resorts to the! speaks
loudl" or softl", #ith slo# or rapid deli$er", etc. The co!binati$e aspect
of speech is of course of capital i!portance, for it i!plies that speech is
constituted b" the recurrence of identical signs' it is because signs are
repeated in successi$e discourses and #ithin one and the sa!e discourse
+although the" are co!bined in accordance #ith the infinite di$ersit" of
$arious people(s speech, that each sign beco!es an ele!ent of the
language% and it is because speech is essentiall" a co!binati$e acti$it"
that it corresponds to an indi$idual act and not to a pure creation.
I.1.4. The dialectics of language and speech 5anguage and speech' each
of these t#o ter!s of course achie$es its full definition onl" in the
dialectical process #hich unites one to the other' there is no language
#ithout speech, and no speech outside language' it is in this echange that
the real linguistic prais is situated, as 4erleau16ont" has pointed out.
-nd 3. 2rondal #rites, (- language is a purel" abstract entit", a nor!
#hich stands abo$e indi$iduals, a set of essential t"pes, #hich speech
actualises in an infinite $ariet" of #a"s.7( 5anguage and speech are
therefore in a relation of reciprocal co!prehensi$eness. 8n the one hand,
the language is (the treasure deposited b" the practice of speech, in the
sub&ects belonging to the sa!e co!!unit"( and, since it is a collecti$e
su!!a of indi$idual i!prints, it !ust re!ain inco!plete at the le$el of
each isolated indi$idual' a language does not eist perfectl" ecept in the
(speaking !ass(% one cannot handle speech ecept b" dra#ing on the
language. 2ut con$ersel", a language is possible onl" starting fro!
speech' historicall", speech pheno!ena al#a"s precede language
pheno!ena +it is speech #hich !akes language e$ol$e,, and geneticall", a
language is constituted in the indi$idual through his learning fro! the
en$iron!ental speech +one does not teach gra!!ar and $ocabular" #hich
are, broadl" speaking, the language, to babies,. To su!, a language is at
the sa!e ti!e the product and the instru!ent of speech' their relationship
is therefore a genuinel" dialectical one. It #ill be noticed +an i!portant
fact #hen #e co!e to se!iological prospects, that there could not
possibl" be +at least according to Saussure, a linguistics of speech, since
an" speech, as soon as it is grasped as a process of co!!unication, is
already part of the language' the latter onl" can be the ob&ect of a science.
This disposes of t#o /uestions at the outset' it is useless to #onder
#hether speech !ust be studied &efore the language' the opposite is
i!possible' one can onl" stud" speech straight a#a" inas!uch as it
reflects the language +inas!uch as it is (glottic(,. it is &ust as useless to
#onder at the outset ho# to separate the language fro! speech' this is no
preli!inar" operation, but on the contrar" the $er" essence of linguistic
and later se!iological in$estigation' to separate the language fro! speech
!eans ipso facto constituting the proble!atics of the !eaning.
I.1.". In '(elmsle) H&el!sle$ has not thro#n o$er Saussure(s conception
of language!speech, but he has redistributed its ter!s in a !ore for!al
#a". Within the language itself +#hich is still opposed to the act of
speech, H&el!sle$ distinguishes three planes' i, the schema, #hich is the
language as pure for! +before choosing this ter! H&el!sle$ hesitated
bet#een s"ste!, pattern( or (fra!e#ork( for this plane,'9 this is Saussure(s
langue in the strictest sense of the #ord. It !ight !ean, for instance, the
.rench r as defined phonologicall" b" its place in a series of oppositions%
ii, the norm, #hich is the language as !aterial for!, after it has been
defined b" so!e degree of social realisation, but still independent of this
realisation% it #ould !ean the r in oral .rench, #hiche$er #a" it is
pronounced +but not that of #ritten .rench,% iii, the usage, #hich is the
language as a set of habits pre$ailing in a gi$en societ"' this #ould !ean
the r as it is pronounced in so!e regions. The relations of deter!ination (
bet#een speech, usage, nor! and sche!a are $aried' the nor! deter!ines
usage and speech% usage deter!ines speech but is also deter!ined b" it%
the sche!a is deter!ined at the sa!e ti!e b" speech, usage and nor!.
Thus appear +in fact, t#o funda!ental planes' i, the schema, the theor" of
#hich !erges #ith that of the for!7 and of the linguistic institution% ii,
the group norm-usage-speech, the theor" of #hich !erges #ith that of the
substance( and of the eecution. -s according to H&el!sle$ 1 nor! is a
pure !ethodical abstraction and speech a single concretion +(a transient
docu!ent(,, #e find in the end a ne# dichotomy schema!usage, Which
replaces the couple language!speech. This redistribution b" H&el!sle$ is
not #ithout interest, ho#e$er' it is a radical for!alisation of the concept
of the language +under the na!e of schema# and eli!inates concrete
speech in fa$our of a !ore social concept' usage. This for!alisation of
the language and socialisation of speech enables us to put all the (positi$e(
and (substantial( ele!ents under the heading of speech, and all the
differentiating ones under that of the language, and the ad$antage of this,
as #e shall see presentl", is to re!o$e one of the contradictions brought
about b" Saussure(s distinction bet#een the language and the speech.
I.1.6. Some pro&lems Whate$er its usefulness and its fecundit", this
distinction ne$ertheless brings so!e proble!s in its #ake. 5et us !ention
onl" three.
Here is the first' is it possible to identif" the language #ith the code and
the speech #ith the !essage: This identification is i!possible according
to H&el!sle$(s theor". 6. ;uiraud refuses it for, he sa"s, the con$entions
of the code are eplicit, and those of the language i!plicit% but it is
certainl" acceptable in the Saussurean fra!e#ork, and -. 4artinet takes it
up.
We encounter an analogous proble! if #e reflect on the relations
bet#een speech and s"ntag!. Speech, as #e ha$e seen, can be defined
+outside the $ariations of intensit" in the phonation, as a +$aried,
co!bination of +recurrent, signs% but at the le$el of the language itself,
ho#e$er, there alread" eist so!e fied s"ntag!s +Saussure cites a
co!pound #ord like magnanimus#. The threshold #hich separates the
language fro! speech !a" therefore be precarious, since it is here
constituted b" (a certain degree of co!bination(. This leads to the /uestion
of an anal"sis of those fied s"ntag!s #hose nature is ne$ertheless
linguistic +glottic, since the" are treated as one b" paradig!atic $ariation
+H&el!sle$ calls this anal"sis !orpho1s"nta,. Saussure had noticed this
pheno!enon of transition' (there is probabl" also a #hole series of
sentences #hich belong to the language, and #hich the indi$idual no
longer has to co!bine hi!self.( If these stereot"pes belong to the language
and no longer to speech, and if it pro$es true that nu!erous se!iological
s"ste!s use the! to a great etent, then it is a real linguistics of the
syntagm that #e !ust epect, #hich #ill be used for all strongl"
stereot"ped (!odes of #riting(.
.inall", the third proble! #e shall indicate concerns the relations of the
language #ith rele$ance +that is to sa", #ith the signif"ing ele!ent proper
in the unit,. The language and rele$ance ha$e so!eti!es been identified
+b" Trubet<ko" hi!self,, thus thrusting outside the language all the non1
rele$ant ele!ents, that is, the co!binati$e $ariants. =et this identification
raises a proble!, for there are co!binati$e $ariants +#hich therefore at
first sight are a speech pheno!enon, #hich are ne$ertheless i!posed, that
is to sa", arbitrar" ' in .rench, it is re/uired b" the language that the I
should be $oiceless after a $oiceless consonant +oncle, and $oiced after a
$oiced consonant +ongle, #ithout these facts lea$ing the real! of
phonetics to belong to that of phonolog". We see the theoretical
conse/uences' !ust #e ad!it that, contrar" to Saussure(s affir!ation +(in
the language there are onl" differences(,, ele!ents #hich are not
differentiating can all the sa!e belong to the language +to the institution,:
4artinet thinks so% .rei atte!pts to etricate Saussure fro! the
contradiction b" localising the differences in su&phonemes, so that, for
instance, p could not be differentiating in itself, but onl", in it, the
consonantic, occlusi$e $oiceless labial features, etc. We shall not here
take sides on this /uestion% fro! a se!iological point of $ie#, #e shall
onl" re!e!ber the necessit" of accepting the eistence of s"ntag!s and
$ariations #hich are not signif"ing and are "et (glottic(, that is, belonging
to the language. This linguistics, hardl" foreseen b" Saussure, can assu!e
a great i!portance #here$er fied s"ntag!s +or stereot"pes, are found in
abundance, #hich is probabl" the case in !ass1languages, and e$er" ti!e
non1signif"ing $ariations for! a second1order corpus of signifiers, #hich
is the case in strongl" connated languages ' the rolled r is a !ere
co!binati$e $ariant at the denotati$e le$el, but in the speech of the
theatre, for instance, it signals a countr" accent and therefore is a part of a
code, #ithout #hich the !essage of (ruralness( could not be either e!itted
or percei$ed.
I.1.#. The idiolect To finish on the sub&ect of language!speech in
linguistics, #e shall indicate t#o appended concepts isolated since
Saussure(s da". The first is that of the idiolect. This is (the language
inas!uch as it is spoken b" a single indi$idual( +4artinet,, or again (the
#hole set of habits of a single indi$idual at a gi$en !o!ent( +0beling,.
>akobson has /uestioned the interest of this notion' the language is al#a"s
socialised, e$en at the indi$idual le$el, for in speaking to so!ebod" one
al#a"s tries to speak !ore or less the other(s language, especiall" as far as
the $ocabular" is concerned +(pri$ate propert" in the sphere of language
does not eist(, ' so the idiolect #ould appear to be largel" an illusion. We
shall ne$ertheless retain fro! this notion the idea that it can be useful to
designate the follo#ing realities' i, the language of the aphasic #ho does
not understand other people and does not recei$e a !essage confor!ing to
his o#n $erbal patterns% this language, then, #ould be a pure idiolect
+>akobson,% ii, the (st"le( of a #riter, although this is al#a"s per$aded b"
certain $erbal patterns co!ing fro! tradition that is, fro! the co!!unit"%
iii, finall", #e can openl" broaden the notion, and define the idiolect as
the language of a linguistic co!!unit", that is, of a group of persons #ho
all interpret in the sa!e #a" all linguistic state!ents' the idiolect #ould
then correspond roughl" to #hat #e ha$e atte!pted to describe else#here
under the na!e of (#riting(.7 We can sa" in general that the hesitations in
defining the concept of idiolect onl" reflect the need for an inter!ediate
entit" bet#een speech and language +as #as alread" pro$ed b" the usage
theor" in H&el!sle$,, or, if "ou like, the need for a speech #hich is
alread" institutionalised but not "et radicall" open to for!alisation, as the
language is.
I.1.$. Duple* Structures If #e agree to identif" language!speech and
code!message, #e !ust here !ention a second appended concept #hich
>akobson has elaborated under the na!e of duple* structures$ #e shall do
so onl" briefl", for his eposition of it has been reprinted. IT We shall
!erel" point out that under the na!e +duple* structures+ >akobson studies
certain special cases of the general relation code!message t#o cases of
circularit" and t#o cases of o$erlapping. i, reported speech, or !essages
#ithin a !essage +4?4,' this is the general case of indirect st"les. ii,
proper na!es' the na!e signifies an" person to #ho! this na!e is
attributed and the circularit" of the code is e$ident +*?*,' ,ohn means a
person named ,ohn$ iii, cases of auton"!" +(@at is a s"llable(,' the #ord is
here used as its o#n designation, the !essage o$erlaps the code +4?*, 1
this structure is i!portant, for it co$ers the (elucidating interpretations(,
na!el", circu!locutions, s"non"!s and translations fro! one language
into another% i$, the shifters are probabl" the !ost interesting double
structure' the !ost read" ea!ple is that of the personal pronoun "I, thou#
an indicial s"!bol #hich unites #ithin itself the con$entional and the
eistential bonds' for it is onl" b" $irtue of a con$entional rule that I
represents its ob&ect +so that I beco!es ego in 5atin, ich in ;er!an, etc.,,
but on the other hand, since it designates the person #ho utters it, it can
onl" refer eistentiall" to the utterance +*?4,. >akobson re!inds us that
personal pronouns ha$e long been thought to be the !ost pri!iti$e la"er
of language +Hu!boldt,, but that in his $ie#, the" point rather to a
co!ple and adult relationship bet#een the code and the !essage' the
personal pronouns are the last ele!ents to be ac/uired in the child(s
speech and the first to be lost in aphasia% the" are ter!s of transference
#hich are difficult to handle. The shifter theor" see!s as "et to ha$e been
little eploited% "et it is, a priori, $er" fruitful to obser$e the code
struggling #ith the !essage, so to speak +the con$erse being !uch !ore
co!!onplace,% perhaps +this is onl" a #orking h"pothesis, it is on this
side, that of the shifters, #hich are, as #e sa#, indicial s"!bols according
to 6eirce(s ter!inolog", that #e should seek the se!iological definition of
the !essages #hich stand on the frontiers of language, notabl" certain
for!s of literar" discourse.
I.. S%&I'L'GIC(L )R'S)%CTS
I..1. The language, speech and the social sciences. The sociological
scope of the language!speech concept is ob$ious. The !anifest affinit" of
the language according to Saussure and of Aurkhei!(s conception of a
collecti$e consciousness independent of its indi$idual !anifestations has
been e!phasised $er" earl" on. - direct influence of Aurkhei! on
Saussure has e$en been postulated, it has been alleged that Saussure had
follo#ed $er" closel" the debate bet#een Aurkhei! and Tarde and that
his conception of the language ca!e fro! Aurkhei! #hile that of speech
#as a kind of concession to Tarde(s idea on the indi$idual ele!ent. This
h"pothesis has lost so!e of its topicalit" because linguistics has chiefl"
de$eloped, in the Saussurean idea of the language, the (s"ste! of $alues(
aspect, #hich led to acceptance of the necessit" for an i!!anent anal"sis
of the linguistic institution, and this i!!anence is ini!ical to sociological
research.
6aradoicall", it is not therefore in the real! of sociolog" that the best
de$elop!ent of the notion of language!speech #ill be found% it is in
philosoph", #ith 4erleau16ont", #ho #as probabl" one of the first
.rench philosophers to beco!e interested in Saussure. He took up again
the Saussurean distinction as an opposition bet#een speaking speech +a
signif"ing intention in its nascent state, and spoken speech +an (ac/uired
#ealth( of the language #hich does recall Saussure(s (treasure(,. He also
broadened the notion b" postulating that an" process presupposes a
system ' thus there has been elaborated an opposition bet#een e$ent and
structure #hich has beco!e accepted7 and #hose fruitfulness in histor" is
#ell kno#n.
Saussure(s notion has, of course, also been taken o$er and elaborated in
the field of anthropolog". The reference to Saussure is too eplicit in the
#hole #ork of *laude 5B$i1Strauss for us to need to insist on it% #e shall
si!pl" re!ind the reader of three facts' i, That the opposition bet#een
process and s"ste! +speech and language, is found again in a concrete
guise in the transition fro! the echange of #o!en to the structures of
kinship% ii, that for 5B$i1Strauss this opposition has an episte!ological
$alue' the stud" of linguistic pheno!ena is the do!ain of !echanistic +in
5B$i1Strauss(s sense of the #ord, na!el", as opposed to (statistical(, and
structural interpretation, and the stud" of speech pheno!ena is the do!ain
of the theor" of probabilities +!acrolinguistics,%7 iii, finall", that the
unconscious character of the language in those #ho dra# on it for their
speech, #hich is eplicitl" postulated b" Saussure, is again found in one
of the !ost original and fruitful contentions of 5B$i1Strauss, #hich states
that it is not the contents #hich are unconscious +this is a criticis! of
>ung(s archet"pes, but the for!s, that is, the s"!bolical function.
This idea is akin to that of 5acan, according to #ho! the libido itself is
articulated as a s"ste! of significations, fro! #hich there follo#s, or #ill
ha$e to follo#, a ne# t"pe of description of the collecti$e field of
i!agination, not b" !eans of its (the!es(, as has been done until no#, but
b" its for!s and its functions. 8r let us sa", !ore broadl" but !ore
clearl"' b" its signifiers !ore than b" its signifieds.
It can be seen fro! these brief indications ho# rich in etra1 or !eta1
linguistic de$elop!ents the notion language!speech is. We shall therefore
postulate that there eists a general categor" language!speech, #hich
e!braces all the s"ste!s of signs% since there are no better ones, #e shall
keep the ter!s language and speech, e$en #hen the" are applied to
co!!unications #hose substance is not $erbal.
I... The garment system We sa# that the separation bet#een the
language and speech represented the essential feature of linguistic
anal"sis% it #ould therefore be futile to propose to appl" this separation
straighta#a" to s"ste!s of ob&ects, i!ages or beha$iour patterns #hich
ha$e not "et been studied fro! a se!antic point of $ie#. We can !erel",
in the case of so!e of these h"pothetical s"ste!s, foresee that certain
classes of facts #ill belong to the categor" of the language and others to
that of speech, and !ake it i!!ediatel" clear that in the course of its
application to se!iolog", Saussure(s distinction is likel" to undergo
!odifications #hich it #ill be precisel" our task to note.
5et us take the gar!ent s"ste! for instance% it is probabl" necessar" to
subdi$ide it into three different s"ste!s, according to #hich substance is
used for co!!unication.
In clothes as -ritten about, that is to sa" described in a fashion
!aga<ine b" !eans of articulated language, there is 6racticall" no
(speech(' the gar!ent #hich is described ne$er corresponds to an
indi$idual handling of the rules of fashion, it is a s"ste!atised set of signs
and rules' it is a language in its pure state. -ccording to the Saussurean
sche!a, a language #ithout speech #ould be i!possible% #hat !akes the
fact acceptable here is, on the one hand, that the language of fashion does
not e!anate fro! the ,speaking !ass( but fro! a group #hich !akes the
decisions and deliberatel" elaborates the code, and on the other hand that
the abstraction inherent in an" language is here !aterialised as #ritten
language' fashion clothes +as #ritten about, are the language at the le$el
of $esti!entar" co!!unication and speech at the le$el of $erbal
co!!unication.
In clothes as photographed +if #e suppose, to si!plif" !atters, that
there is no duplication b" $erbal description,, the language still issues
fro! the fashion group, but it is no longer gi$en in a #holl" abstract for!,
for a photographed gar!ent is al#a"s #orn b" an indi$idual #o!an.
What is gi$en b" the fashion photograph is a se!i1for!alised state of the
gar!ent s"ste!' for on the one hand, the language of fashion !ust here be
inferred fro! a pseudo1real gar!ent, and on the other, the #earer of the
gar!ent +the photographed !odel, is, so to speak, a nor!ati$e indi$idual,
chosen for her canonic generalit", and #ho *onse/uentl" represents a
(speech( #hich is fied and de$oid of all co!binati$e freedo!.
.inall" in clothes as #orn +or real clothes,, as Trubet<ko" had
suggested,7 #e again find the classic distinction bet#een language and
speech. The language, in the gar!ent s"ste!, is !ade i, b" the
oppositions of pieces, parts of gar!ent and (details(, the $ariation of #hich
entails a change in !eaning +to #ear a beret or a bo#ler hat does not ha$e
the sa!e !eaning,% ii, b" the rules #hich go$ern the association of the
pieces a!ong the!sel$es, either on the length of the bod" or in depth.
Speech, in the gar!ent s"ste!, co!prises all the pheno!ena of ano!ic
fabrication +fe# are still left in our societ", or of indi$idual #a" of
#earing +si<e of the gar!ent, degree of cleanliness or #ear, personal
/uirks, free association of pieces,. -s for the dialectic #hich unites here
costu!e +the language, and clothing +speech,, it does not rese!ble that of
$erbal language% true, clothing al#a"s dra#s on costu!e +ecept in the
case of eccentricit", #hich, b" the #a", also has its signs,, but costu!e, at
least toda", precedes clothing, since it co!es fro! the read"1!ade
industr", that is, fro! a !inorit" group +although !ore anon"!ous than
that of Haute *outure,.
I..!. The food system 5et us no# take another signif"ing s"ste!' food.
We shall find there #ithout difficult" Saussure(s distinction. The
ali!entar" language is !ade of i, rules of eclusion +ali!entar" taboos,%
ii, signif"ing oppositions of units, the t"pe of #hich re!ains to be
deter!ined +for instance the type sa)oury!s-eet#$ iii, rules of association,
either si!ultaneous +at the le$el of a dish, or successi$e +at the le$el of a
!enu,% i$, rituals of use #hich function, perhaps, as a kind of ali!entar"
rhetoric. -s for ali!entar" (speech(, #hich is $er" rich, it co!prises all the
personal +or fa!il", $ariations of preparation and association +one !ight
consider cooker" #ithin one fa!il", #hich is sub&ect to a nu!ber of
habits, as an idiolect,. The menu, for instance, illustrates $er" #ell this
relationship bet#een the language and speech' an" !enu is concocted
#ith reference to a structure +#hich is both national 1 or regional 1 and
social,% but this structure is filled differentl" according to the da"s and the
users, &ust as a linguistic (for!( is filled b" the free $ariations and
co!binations #hich a speaker needs for a particular !essage. The
relationship bet#een the language and speech #ould here be fairl" si!ilar
to that #hich is found in $erbal language' broadl", it is usage, that is to
sa", a sort of sedi!entation of !an" people(s speech, #hich !akes up the
ali!entar" language% ho#e$er, pheno!ena of indi$idual inno$ation can
ac/uire an institutional $alue #ithin it. What is !issing, in an" case,
contrar" to #hat happened in the gar!ent s"ste!, is the action of a
deciding group' the ali!entar" language is e$ol$ed onl" fro! a broadl"
collecti$e usage, or fro! a purel" indi$idual speech.
I..4. The car system, the furniture system To bring to a close, so!e#hat
arbitraril", this /uestion of the prospects opened up b" the
language!speech distinction, #e shall !ention a fe# !ore suggestions
concerning t#o s"ste!s of ob&ects, $er" different, it is true, but #hich
ha$e in co!!on a dependence in each case on a deciding and
!anufacturing group' cars and furniture.
In the car s"ste!, the language is !ade up b" a #hole set of for!s and
details, the structure of #hich is established differentiall" b" co!paring
the protot"pes to each other +independentl" of the nu!ber of their
(copies(,% the scope of (speech( is $er" narro# because, for a gi$en status of
bu"er, freedo! in choosing a !odel is $er" restricted' it can in$ol$e onl"
t#o or three !odels, and #ithin each !odel, colour and fittings. 2ut
perhaps #e should here echange the notion of cars as o&(ects for that of
cars as sociological facts% #e #ould then find in the dri)ing of cars the
$ariations in usage of the ob&ect #hich usuall" !ake up the plane of
speech. .or the user cannot in this instance ha$e a direct action on the
!odel and co!bine its units% his freedo! of interpretation is found in the
usage de$eloped in ti!e and #ithin #hich the (for!s( issuing fro! the
language !ust, in order to beco!e actual, be rela"ed b" certain practices.
.inall", the last s"ste! about #hich #e should like to sa" a #ord, that
of furniture, is also a se!antic ob&ect' the (language( is for!ed both b" the
oppositions of functionall" identical pieces +t#o t"pes of #ardrobe, t#o
t"pes of bed, etc,, each of #hich, according to its (st"le(, refers to a
different !eaning, and b" the rules of association of the different units at
the le$el of a roo! +(furnishing(,% the (speech( is here for!ed either b" the
insignificant $ariations #hich the user can introduce into one unit +b"
tinkering #ith one ele!ent, for instance,, or b" freedo! in associating
pieces of furniture together.
I..". Comple* systems The !ost interesting s"ste!s, at least a!ong
those #hich belong to the pro$ince of !ass1co!!unications, are co!ple
s"ste!s in #hich different substances are engaged. In cine!a, tele$ision
and ad$ertising, the senses are sub&ected to the concerted action of a
collection of i!ages, sounds and #ritten #ords. It #ill, therefore, be
pre!ature to decide, in their case, #hich facts belong to the language and
#hich belong to speech, on the one hand as long as one has not disco$ered
#hether the (language( of each of these co!ple s"ste!s is original or
onl" co!pounded of the subsidiar" (languages( #hich ha$e their, places in
the!, and on the other hand as long as these subsidiar" languages ha$e
not been anal"sed +#e kno# the linguistic (language(, but not that of
i!ages or that of !usic,.
-s for the 6ress, #hich can be reasonabl" considered as an autono!ous
signif"ing s"ste!, e$en if #e confine oursel$es to its #ritten ele!ents
onl", #e are still al!ost entirel" ignorant of a linguistic pheno!enon
#hich see!s to pla" an essential part in it' connotation, that is, the
de$elop!ent of a s"ste! of second1order !eanings, #hich are so to speak
parasitic on the language proper . This second order s"ste! is also a
(language(, #ithin #hich there de$elop speech1pheno!ena, idiolects and
duple structures. In the case of such co!ple or connoted s"ste!s +both
characteristics are not !utuall" eclusi$e,, it is therefore no longer
possible to predeter!ine, e$en in global and h"pothetical fashion, #hat
belongs to the language and #hat belongs to speech.
I..6. .ro&lems "I# - the origin of the )arious signifyings systems The
se!iological etension of the language!speech notion brings #ith it so!e
proble!s, #hich of course coincide #ith the points #here the linguistic
!odel can no longer be follo#ed and !ust be altered. The first proble!
concerns the origin of the $arious s"ste!s, and thus touches on the $er"
dialectics of language and speech. In the linguistic !odel, nothing enters
the language #ithout ha$ing been tried in speech, but con$ersel" no
speech is possible +that is, fulfils its function of co!!unication, if it is not
dra#n fro! the (treasure( of the language. This process is still, at least
partiall", found in a s"ste! like that of food, although indi$idual
inno$ations brought into it can beco!e language pheno!ena. 2ut in !ost
other se!iological s"ste!s, the language is elaborated not b" the
(speaking !ass( but b" a deciding group. In this sense, it can be held that
in !ost se!iological languages, the sign is reall" and trul" (arbitrar"7(
since it is founded in artificial fashion b" a unilateral decision% these in
fact are fabricated languages, (logo1techni/ues(. The user follo#s these
languages, dra#s !essages +or (speech(, fro! the! but has no part in their
elaboration. The deciding group #hich is at the origin of the s"ste! +and
of its changes, can be !ore or less narro#% it can be a highl" /ualified
technocrac" +fashion, !otor industr",% it can also be a !ore diffuse and
anon"!ous group +the production of standardised furniture, the !iddle
reaches of read"1to1#ear,. If, ho#e$er, this artificial character does not
alter the institutional nature of the co!!unication and preser$es so!e
a!ount of dialectical pla" bet#een the s"ste! and usage, it is because, in
the first place, although i!posed on the users, the signif"ing (contract( is
no less obser$ed b" the great !a&orit" of the! +other#ise the user is
marked #ith a certain (asociabilit"(' he can no longer co!!unicate
an"thing ecept his eccentricit",% and because, !oreo$er, languages
elaborated as the outco!e of a decision are not entirel" free +(arbitrar"(,.
The" are sub&ect to the deter!ination of the co!!unit", at least through
the follo#ing agencies' i, #hen ne# needs are born, follo#ing the
de$elop!ent of societies +the !o$e to se!i10uropean clothing in
conte!porar" -frican countries, the birth of ne# patterns of /uick feeding
in industrial and urban societies,% ii, #hen econo!ic re/uire!ents bring
about the disappearance or pro!otion of certain !aterials +artificial
tetiles,% iii, #hen ideolog" li!its the in$ention of for!s, sub&ects it to
taboos and reduces, so to speak, the !argins of the (nor!al(. In a #ider
sense, #e can sa" that the elaborations of deciding groups, na!el" the
logo1techni/ues, are the!sel$es onl" the ter!s of an e$er1#idening
function, #hich is the collecti$e field of i!agination of the epoch' thus
indi$idual inno$ation is transcended b" a sociological deter!ination +fro!
restricted groups,, but these sociological deter!inations refer in turn to a
final !eaning, #hich is anthropological.
I..#. .ro&lems "II# - the proportion &et-een +language+ and +speech+ in
the )arious systems The second proble! presented b" the se!iological
etension of the language!speech notion is centred on the proportion, in
the !atter of $olu!e, #hich can be established bet#een the (language( and
the corresponding (speech( in an" s"ste!. In $erbal language there is a
$er" great disproportion bet#een the language, #hich is a finite set of
rules, and speech, #hich co!es under the heading of these rules and is
practicall" unli!ited in its $ariet". It can be presu!ed that the food
s"ste! still offers an i!portant difference in the $olu!e of each, since
#ithin the culinar" (for!s(, the !odalities and co!binations in
interpretation are nu!erous. 2ut #e ha$e seen that in the car or the
furniture s"ste! the scope for co!binati$e $ariations and free
associations is s!all' there is $er" little !argin 1 at least of the sort #hich
is ackno#ledged b" the institution itself 1 bet#een the !odel and its
(eecution(' these are s"ste!s in #hich (speech( is poor. In a particular
s"ste!, that of #ritten fashion, speech is e$en al!ost non1eistent, so that
#e are dealing here, paradoicall", #ith a language #ithout speech +#hich
is possible, as #e ha$e seen, onl" because this language is upheld b"
linguistic speech,.
The fact re!ains that if it is true that there are languages #ithout speech
or #ith a $er" restricted speech, #e shall ha$e to re$ise the Saussurean
theor" #hich states that a language is nothing but a s"ste! of differences
+in #hich case, being entirel" negati$e, it cannot be grasped outside
speech,. and co!plete the couple language!speech #ith a third,
presignif"ing ele!ent, a !atter or substance pro$iding the +necessar",
support of signification. In a phrase like a long or short dress, the (dress( is
onl" the support of a $ariant "long!short# -hich does full" belong to the
gar!ent language 1 a distinction #hich is unkno#n in ordinar" language,
in #hich, since the sound is considered as immediately significant, it
cannot be deco!posed into an inert and a se!antic ele!ent. This #ould
lead us to recognise in +non1linguistic, se!iological s"ste!s three +and
not t#o, planes' that of the !atter, that of the language and that of the
usage. This of course allo#s us to account for s"ste!s #ithout (eecution(,
since the first ele!ent ensures that there is a !aterialit" of the language%
and such a !odification is all the !ore plausible since it can be eplained
geneticall"' if, in such s"ste!s, the (language( needs a (!atter( +and no
longer a (speech(,, it is because unlike that of hu!an language their origin
is in general utilitarian, and not signif"ing.
II. SIGNIFIER AND SIGNIFIED
II.1. T*% SIGN
The classification of signs The signified and the signifier, in Saussurean
ter!inolog", are the co!ponents of the sign. )o# this ter!, sign, #hich is
found in $er" different $ocabularies +fro! that of theolog" to that of
!edicine,, and #hose histor" is $er" rich +running fro! the ;ospels7( to
c"bernetics,, is for these $er" reasons $er" a!biguous% so before #e co!e
back to the Saussurean acceptance of the #ord, #e !ust sa" a #ord about
the notional field in #hich it occupies a place, albeit i!precise, as #ill be
seen. .or, according to the arbitrar" choice of $arious authors, the sign is
placed in a series of ter!s #hich ha$e affinities and dissi!ilarities #ith it'
signal, inde*, icon, sym&ol, allegory, are the chief ri$als of sign. 5et us
first state the ele!ent #hich is co!!on to all these ter!s' the" all
necessaril" refer us to a relation bet#een t#o relata. This feature cannot
therefore be used to distinguish an" of the ter!s in the series% to find a
$ariation in !eaning, #e shall ha$e to resort to other features, #hich #ill
be epressed here in the for! of an alternati$e "presences a&sence# i, the
relation i!plies, or does not i!pl", the !ental representation of one of the
relata$ ii, the relation i!plies, or does not i!pl", an analog" bet#een the
relata$ iii, the link bet#een the t#o relata +the sti!ulus and its response,
is i!!ediate or is not% i$, the relata eactl" coincide or, on the contrar",
one o$erruns the other% $, the relation i!plies, or does not i!pl", an
eistential connection #ith the user. Whether these features are positi$e or
negati$e +!arked or un!arked,, each ter! in the field is differentiated
fro! its neighbours. It !ust be added that the distribution of the field
$aries fro! one author to another, a fact #hich produces ter!inological
contradictions% these #ill be easil" seen at a glance fro! a table of the
incidence of features and ter!s in four different authors' Hegel, 6eirce,
>ung and Wallon +the reference to so!e features, #hether !arked or
un!arked, !a" be absent in so!e authors,. We see that the ter!inological
contradiction bears essentiall" on inde +for 6eirce, the inde is
eistential, for Wallon, it is not, and on sym&ol +for Hegel and Wallon
there is a relation of analog" 1 or of ,!oti$ation( 1 bet#een the t#o relata
of the s"!bol, but not for 6eirce% !oreo$er, for 6eirce, the s"!bol is not
eistential, #hereas it is for >ung,. 2ut #e see also that these
contradictions 1 #hich in this table are read $erticall" 1 are $er" #ell
eplained, or rather, that the" co!pensate each other through transfers of
!eaning fro! ter! to ter! in the sa!e author. These transfers can here be
read hori<ontall"' for instance, the s"!bol is analogical in Hegel as
opposed to the sign #hich is not% and if it is not in 6eirce, it is because the
icon can absorb that feature. -ll this !eans, to su! up and talk in
se!iological ter!s +this being the point of this brief anal"sis #hich
reflects, like a !irror, the sub&ect and !ethods of our stud",, that the
#ords in the field deri$e their !eaning onl" fro! their opposition to one
another +usuall" in pairs,, and that if these oppositions are preser$ed, the
!eaning is una!biguous. In particular, signal and inde*, sym&ol and sign,
are the ter!s of t#o different functions, #hich can the!sel$es be
opposed1as a #hole, as the" do in Wallon, #hose ter!inolog" is the
clearest and the !ost co!plete "icon and allegory are confined to the
$ocabular" of 6eirce and >ung,. We shall therefore sa", #ith Wallon, that
the signal and the inde for! a group of relata de$oid of !ental
representation, #hereas in the opposite group, that of sym&ol and sign,
this representation eists% further!ore, the signal is i!!ediate and
eistential, #hereas the inde is not +it is onl" a trace,% finall", that in the
sym&ol the representation is analogical and inade/uate +*hristianit"
(outruns( the cross,, #hereas in the sign the relation is un!oti$ated and
eact +there is no analog" bet#een the #ord o and the i!age of an o,
#hich is perfectl" co$ered b" its relatum#.
II.1.. The linguistic sign In linguistics, the notion of sign does not gi$e
rise to an" co!petition bet#een neighbouring ter!s. When he sought to
designate the signif"ing relationship, Saussure i!!ediatel" eli!inated
s"!bol +because the ter! i!plied the idea of !oti$ation, in fa$our of
sign #hich he defined as the union of a signifier and a signified +in the
fashion of the recto and $erso of a sheet of paper,, or else of an acoustic
i!age and a concept. Cntil he found the -ords signifier and signified,
ho#e$er, sign re!ained a!biguous, for it tended to beco!e identified
#ith the signifier onl", #hich Saussure #anted at all costs to a$oid% after
ha$ing hesitated bet#een s/me and same, form and idea, image and
concept, Saussure settled upon signifier and signified, the union of #hich
for!s the sign. This is a para!ount proposition, #hich one !ust al#a"s
bear in !ind, for there is a tendenc" to interpret sign as signifier, #hereas
this is a t#o1sided >anus1like entit". The +i!portant, conse/uence is that,
for Saussure, H&el!sle$ and .rei at least, since the signifieds are signs
a!ong others, se!antics !ust be a part of structural linguistics, #hereas
for the -!erican !echanists the signifieds are substances #hich !ust be
epelled fro! linguistics and left to ps"cholog". Since Saussure, the
theor" of the linguistic sign has been enriched b" the dou&le articulation
principle, the i!portance of #hich has been sho#n b" 4artinet, to the
etent that he !ade it the criterion #hich defines language. .or a!ong
linguistic signs, #e !ust distinguish bet#een the significant units, each
one of #hich is endo#ed #ith one !eaning +the (#ords(, or to be eact,
the !one!es(, and #hich for! the first articulation, and the distincti)e
units, #hich are part of the for! but do not ha$e a direct !eaning +(the
sounds(, or rather the phone!es,, and #hich constitute the second
articulation. It is this double articulation #hich accounts for the econo!"
of hu!an language% for it is a po#erful gearing1do#n #hich allo#s, for
instance, -!erican Spanish to produce, #ith onl" DI distincti$e units,
1EE,EEE significant units.
II.1.!. 0orm and su&stance.- The sign is therefore a co!pound of a
signifier and a signified. The plane of the signifiers constitutes the plane
of e*pression and that of the signifieds the plane of content. Within each
of these t#o planes, H&el!sle$ has introduced a distinction #hich !a" be
i!portant for the stud" of the se!iological +and no longer onl" linguistic,
sign. -ccording to hi!, each plane co!prises t#o strata form and
su&stance$ #e !ust insist on the ne# definition of these t#o ter!s, for
each of the! has a #eight" leical past. The form is #hat can be
described ehausti$el", si!pl" and coherentl" +episte!ological criteria,
b" linguistics #ithout resorting to an" etra1linguistic pre!ise% the
su&stance is the #hole set of aspects of linguistic pheno!ena #hich
cannot be described #ithout resorting to etra1linguistic pre!ises. Since
both strata eist on the plane of epression and the plane of content, #e
therefore ha$e' i, a substance of epression' for instance the phonic,
articulator", non1functional substance #hich is the field of phonetics, not
phonolog"% ii, a for! of epression, !ade of the paradig!atic and
s"ntactic rules +let us note that the sa!e for! can ha$e t#o different
substances, one phonic, the other graphic,% iii, a substance of content' this
includes, for instance, the e!otional, ideological, or si!pl" notional
aspects of the signified, its (positi$e( !eaning% i$, a for! of content' it is
the for!al organisation of the signified a!ong the!sel$es through the
absence or presence of a se!antic !ark. This last notion is difficult to
grasp, because of the i!possibilit" of separating the signifiers fro! the
signifieds in hu!an language% but for this $er" reason the subdi$ision
form!su&stance can be !ade !ore useful and easier to handle in
se!iolog", in the follo#ing cases' i, #hen #e deal #ith a s"ste! in #hich
the signifieds are substantified in a substance other than that of their o#n
s"ste! +this is, as #e ha$e seen, the case #ith fashion as it is #ritten
about,% ii, #hen a s"ste! of ob&ects includes a substance #hich is not
i!!ediatel" and functionall" significant, but can be, at a certain le$el,
si!pl" utilitarian' the function of a dish can be to signif" a situation and
also to ser$e as food.
II.1.4. The semiological sign This perhaps allo#s us to foresee the
nature of the se!iological sign in relation to the linguistic sign. The
se!iological sign is also, like its !odel, co!pounded of a signifier and a
signified +the colour of a light, for instance, is an order to !o$e on, in the
High#a" *ode,, but it differs fro! it at the le$el of its substances. 4an"
se!iological s"ste!s +ob&ects, gestures, pictorial i!ages, ha$e a
substance of epression #hose essence is not to signif"% often, the" are
ob&ects of e$er"da" use, used b" societ" in a deri$ati$e #a", to signif"
so!ething' clothes are used for protection and food for nourish!ent e$en
if the" are also used as signs. We propose to call these se!iological signs,
#hose origin is utilitarian and functional, sign-functions. The sign1
function bears #itness to a double !o$e!ent, #hich !ust be taken apart.
In a first stage +this anal"sis is purel" operati$e and does not i!pl" real
te!poralit", the function beco!es per$aded #ith !eaning. This
se!antisation is ine$itable' as soon as there is a society, e)ery usage is
con)erted into a sign of itself$ the use of a raincoat is to gi$e protection
fro! the rain, but this use cannot be dissociated fro! the $er" signs of an
at!ospheric situation. Since our societ" produces onl" standardised,
nor!alised ob&ects, these ob&ects are una$oidabl" realisations of a !odel,
the speech of a language, the substances of a significant for!. To
redisco$er a non1signif"ing ob&ect, one #ould ha$e to i!agine a utensil
absolutel" i!pro$ised and #ith no si!ilarit" to an eisting !odel +5B$i1
Strauss has sho#n to #hat etent tinkering about is itself the search for a
!eaning,' a h"pothesis #hich is $irtuall" i!possible to $erif" in an"
societ". This uni$ersal se!antisation of the usages is crucial' it epresses
the fact that there is no realit" ecept #hen it is intelligible, and should
e$entuall" lead to the !erging of sociolog" #ith sociological 2ut once the
sign is constituted, societ" can $er" #ell refunctionalise it, and speak
about it as if it #ere an ob&ect !ade for use' a fur1coat #ill be described as
if it ser$ed onl" to protect fro! the cold. This recurrent functionalisation,
#hich needs, in order to eist, a second1order language, is b" no !eans
the sa!e as the first +and indeed purel" ideal, functionalisation' for the
function #hich is re1presented does in fact correspond to a second
+disguised, se!antic institutionalisation, #hich is of the order of
connotation. The sign1function therefore has +probabl", an
anthropological $alue, since it is the $er" unit #here the relations of the
technical and the significant are #o$en together.
II.. T*% SIGNI+I%,
II..1. 1ature of the signified' In linguistics, the nature of the signified has
gi$en rise to discussions #hich ha$e centred chiefl" on its degree of
(realit"(% all agree, ho#e$er, on e!phasising the fact that the signified is
not (a thing( but a !ental representation of the (thing(. We ha$e seen that in
the definition of the sign b" Wallon, this representati$e character #as a
rele$ant feature of the sign and the s"!bol +as opposed to the inde and
the signal,. Saussure hi!self has clearl" !arked the !ental nature of the
signified b" calling it a concept the signified of the #ord o is not the
ani!al o, but its !ental i!age +this #ill pro$e i!portant in the
subse/uent discussion on the nature of the sign,. These discussions,
ho#e$er, still bear the sta!p of ps"chologis!, so the anal"sis of the
Stoics #ill perhaps be thought preferable. The" carefull" distinguished the
phantasia logiki +the !ental representation,, the tinganon +the real thing,
and the lekton +the utterable,. The signified is neither the phantasia nor
the tinganon but rather the lekton% being neither an act of consciousness,
nor a real thing, it can be defined onl" #ithin the signif"ing process, in a
/uasi1tautological #a"' it is this (so!ething( #hich is !eant b" the person
#ho uses the sign. In this #a" #e are back again to a purel" functional
definition' the signified is one of the t#o relata of the sign% the onl"
difference #hich opposes it to the signified is that the latter is a !ediator.
The situation could not be essentiall" different in se!iolog", #here
ob&ects, i!ages, gestures, etc., inas!uch as the" are significant, refer back
to so!ething #hich can be epressed onl" through the!, ecept that the
se!iological signified can be taken up b" the linguistic signs. 8ne can
sa", for instance, that a certain s#eater !eans long autumn -alks in the
-oods$ in this case, the signified is !ediated not onl" b" its $esti!entar"
signifier +the s#eater,, but also b" a frag!ent of speech +#hich greatl"
helps in handling it,. We could gi$e the na!e of isology to the
pheno!enon #hereb" language #ields its signifiers and signifieds so that
it is i!possible to dissociate and differentiate the!, in order to set aside
the case of the non1isologic s"ste!s +#hich are ine$itabl" co!ple,, in
#hich the signified can be si!pl" (u*taposed #ith its signifier.
II... Classification of the linguistic signifieds Ho# can #e classif" the
signifieds: We kno# that in se!iolog" this operation is funda!ental,
since it a!ounts to isolating the form fro! the content. -s far as linguistic
signifiers are concerned, t#o sorts of classification can be concei$ed. The
first is eternal, and !akes use of the (positi$e( +and not purel"
differential, content of concepts' this is the case in the !ethodical
groupings of Hallig and Wartburg, and in the !ore con$incing notional
fields of Trier and leicological fields of 4atorB. 2ut fro! a structural
point of $ie#, this classification +especiall" those of Hallig and Wartburg,
ha$e the defect of resting still too !uch on the +ideological, su&stance of
the signifieds, and not on their form. To succeed in establishing a reall"
for!al classification, one #ould ha$e to succeed in reconstituting
oppositions of signifieds, and in isolating, #ithin each one of these, a
rele$ant co!!utati$e feature' this !ethod has been ad$ocated b"
H&el!sle$, SFrensen, 6rieto and ;rei!as. H&el!sle$, for instance,
deco!poses a !one!e like (!are( into t#o s!aller significant units'
(Horse( G (fe!ale(, and these units can be co!!utated and therefore used
to reconstitute ne# !one!es +(pig(, G (fe!ale( H (so#(, (horse( G (!ale( H
(stallion(,% 6rieto sees in ($ir( t#o co!!utable features (ho!o( G
(!asculus(% SFrensen reduces the leicon of kinship to a co!bination of
(pri!iti$es( +(father( H !ale parent, (parent( H first ascendant,. )one of
these anal"ses has "et been de$eloped . .inall", #e !ust re!ind the
reader that according to so!e linguists, the signifieds are not a part of
linguistics, #hich is concerned onl" #ith signifiers, and that se!antic
classification lies outside the field of linguistics.7
II..!. The semiological signifieds Structural linguistics, ho#e$er
ad$anced, has not "et elaborated a se!antics, that is to sa" a classification
of the forms of the $erbal signified. 8ne !a" therefore easil" i!agine that
it is at present i!possible to put for#ard a classification of se!iological
signifieds, unless #e choose to fall back on to kno#n notional fields. We
shall $enture three obser$ations onl".
The first concerns the !ode of actualisation of se!iological signifieds.
These can occur either isologicall" or not% in the latter case, the" are taken
up, through articulated language, either b" a #ord "-eek-end# or b" a
group of #ords "long -alks in the country#$ the" are thereb" easier to
handle, since the anal"st is not forced to i!pose on the! his o#n
!etalanguage, but also !ore dangerous, since the" ceaselessl" refer back
to the se!antic classification of the language itself +#hich is itself
unkno#n,, and not to a classification ha$ing its bases in the s"ste! under
obser$ation. The signifieds of the fashion gar!ent, e$en if the" are
!ediated b" the speech of the !aga<ine, are not necessaril" distributed
like the signifieds of the language, since the" do not al#a"s ha$e the sa!e
(length( +here a #ord, there a sentence,. In the first case, that of the
isologic s"ste!s, the signified has no !aterialisation other than its t"pical
signifier% one cannot therefore handle it ecept b" i!posing on it a
!etalanguage. 8ne can for instance ask so!e sub&ects about the !eaning
the" attribute to a piece of !usic b" sub!itting to the! a list of $erbalised
signifieds "anguished, stormy, som&re, tormented, etc.,%7 #hereas in fact
all these $erbal signs for a single !usical signified, #hich ought to be
designated b" one single cipher, #hich #ould i!pl" no $erbal dissection
and no !etaphorical s!all change. These !etalanguages, issuing fro! the
anal"st in the for!er case, and the s"ste! itself in the latter, are probabl"
ine$itable, and this is #hat still !akes the anal"sis of the signifieds, or
ideological anal"sis, proble!atical% its place #ithin the se!iological
pro&ect #ill at least ha$e to be defined in theor".
8ur second re!ark concerns the etension of the se!iological
signifieds. The #hole of the signifieds of a s"ste! +once for!alised,
constitutes a great function% no# it is probable that fro! one s"ste! to the
other, the great se!iological functions not onl" co!!unicate, but also
partl" o$erlap% the for! of the signified in the gar!ent s"ste! is probabl"
partl" the sa!e as that of the signified in the food s"ste!, being, as the"
are, both articulated on the large1scale opposition of #ork and festi$it",
acti$it" and leisure. 8ne !ust therefore foresee a total ideological
description, co!!on to all the s"ste!s of a gi$en s"nchron".
.inall" 1 and this #ill be our third re!ark 1 #e !a" consider that to
each s"ste! of !agnifiers +leicons, there corresponds, on the plane of
the signifieds, a corpus of practices and techni/ues% these collections of
signifieds i!pl" on the part of s"ste! consu!ers +of (readers(, that is to
sa",, different degrees of kno#ledge +according to differences in their
(culture(,, #hich eplains ho# the sa!e (leie( +or large unit of reading,
can be deciphered differentl" according to the indi$iduals concerned,
#ithout ceasing to belong to a gi$en (language(. Se$eral leicons1and
conse/uentl" se$eral bodies of signifieds 1 can coeist #ithin the sa!e
indi$idual, deter!ining in each one !ore or less (deep( readings.
II.!. T*% SIGNI+I%R
II.!.1. 1ature of the signaller. The nature of the signifier suggests roughl"
the sa!e re!arks as that of the signified' it is purel" a relatum, #hose
definition cannot be separated fro! that of the signified. The onl"
difference is that the !agnifier is a !ediator' so!e !atter is necessar" to
it. 2ut on the one hand it is not sufficient to it, and on the other, in
se!iolog", the signifier can, too, be rela"ed b" a certain !atter' that of
#ords. This !aterialit" of the signifier !akes it once !ore necessar" to
distinguish clearl" matter fro! su&stance a substance can be i!!aterial
+in the case of the substance of the content,% therefore, all one can sa" is
that the substance of the signifier is al#a"s !aterial +sounds, ob&ects,
i!ages,. In se!iolog", #here #e shall ha$e to deal #ith !ied s"ste!s in
#hich different kinds of !atter are in$ol$ed +sound and i!age, ob&ect and
#riting, etc.,, it !a" be appropriate to collect together all the signs,
inasmuch as they are home &y one and the same matter, under the concept
of the typical sign the $erbal sign, the graphic sign, the iconic sign, the
gestural sign are all t"pical signs.
II.!.. Classification of the signifiers The clarification of the signifiers is
nothing but the structuralisation proper of the s"ste!. What has to be done
is to cut up the (endless( !essage constituted b" the #hole of the !essages
e!itted at the le$el of the studied corpus, into !ini!al significant units b"
!eans of the co!!utation test,7 then to group these units into
paradig!atic classes, and finall" to classif" the s"ntag!atic relations
#hich link these units. These operations constitute an i!portant part of the
se!iological undertaking #hich #ill be dealt #ith in chapter 111% #e
anticipate the point in !entioning it here.
II.4. T*% SIGNI+IC(TI'N
II.4.1. The significant correlation The sign is a +t#o1faced, slice of
sonorit", $isualit", etc. The signification can be concei$ed as a process% it
is the act #hich binds the signifier and the signified, an act #hose product
is the sign. This distinction has, of course, onl" a classif"ing +and not
pheno!enological, $alue' firstl", because the union of signifier and
signified, as #e shall see, does not ehaust the se!antic act, for the sign
deri$es its $alue also fro! its surroundings% secondl", because, probabl",
the !ind does not proceed, in the se!antic process, b" con&unction but b"
car$ing out. -nd indeed the signification "semiosis# does not unite
unilateral entities, it does not con&oin t#o ter!s, for the $er" good reason
that signifier and signified are both at once ter! and relation. This
a!biguit" !akes an" graphic representation of the signification so!e#hat
clu!s", "et this operation is necessar" for an" se!iological discourse. 8n
this point, let us !ention the follo#ing atte!pts'
1) Sr?Sd' In Saussure, the sign appears, in his
de!onstration, as the $ertical etension of a situation in
depth in the language, the signified is, as it #ere, &ehind
the signifier, and can be reached onl" through it, although,
on the one hand, these ecessi$el" spatial !etaphors !iss
the dialectical nature of the signification, and on the other
hand the (closed( character of the sign is acceptable onl"
for the frankl" discontinuous s"ste!s, such as that of the
language.
) 0@*' H&el!sle$ has chosen in preference a purel"
graphic representation' there is a relation +@, bet#een the
plane of epression +0, and the plane of content +*,. This
for!ula enables us to account econo!icall" and #ithout
!etaphorical falsification, for the !etalanguages or
deri$ati$e s"ste!s 0 @ +0@*,.
!)
S
?S' 5acan, follo#ed b" 5aplanche and 5eclaire, uses a
spatialised #riting #hich, ho#e$er, differs fro! Saussure(s
representation on t#o points' i, the signifier +S, is global,
!ade up of a !ulti1le$elled chain +!etaphorical chain,'
signifier and signified ha$e onl" a floating relationship and
coincide onl" at certain anchorage points% ii, the line
bet#een the signifier +S, and the signified +s, has its o#n
$alue +#hich of course it had not in Saussure,' it represents
the repression of the signified.
4) Sr H Sd' .inall", in non1isologic s"ste!s +that is, those
in #hich the signifieds are !aterialised through another
s"ste!,, it is of course legiti!ate to etend the relation in
the for! of an e/ui$alence but not of an identit".
II.4.. The ar&itrary and the moti)ated in linguistics We ha$e seen that
all that could be said about the signifier is that it #as a +!aterial, !ediator
of the signified. What is the nature of this !ediation: In linguistics, this
proble! has pro$oked so!e discussion, chiefl" about ter!inolog", for all
is fairl" clear about the !ain issues +this #ill perhaps not be the case #ith
se!iolog",. Starting fro! the fact that in hu!an language the choice of
sounds is not i!posed on us b" the !eaning itself +the o does not
deter!ine the sound o, since in an" case the sound is different in other
languages,, Saussure had spoken of an ar&itrary relation bet#een signifier
and signified. 2en$eniste has /uestioned the aptness of this #ord' #hat is
arbitrar" is the relation bet#een the signifier and the (thing( #hich is
signified +of the sound o and the ani!al the o,. 2ut, as #e ha$e seen,
e$en for Saussure, the sign is not the (thing(, but the !ental representation
of the thing +concept,% the association of sound and representation is the
outco!e of a collecti$e training +for instance the learning of the .rench
tongue,% this association 1 #hich is the signification 1 is b" no !eans
arbitrar" +for no .rench person is free to !odif" it,, indeed it is, on the
contrar", necessar". It #as therefore suggested to sa" that in linguistics
the signification is unmoti)ated. This lack of !oti$ation, is, b" the #a",
onl" partial +Saussure speaks of a relati$e analog",' fro! signified to
signifier, there is a certain !oti$ation in the +restricted, case of
ono!atopoeia, as #e shall see shortl", and also e$er" ti!e a series of
signs is created b" the tongue through the i!itation of a certain protot"pe
of co!position or deri$ation' this is the case #ith so1called proportional
signs' pommier, poirer, a&ricotier, etc., once the lack of !oti$ation in
their roots and their suffi is established, sho# an analog" in their
co!position. We shall therefore sa" in general ter!s that in the language
the link bet#een signifier and signified is contractual in its principle, but
that this contract is collecti$e, inscribed in a long te!poralit" +Saussure
sa"s that (a language is al#a"s a legac"(,, and that conse/uentl" it is, as it
#ere, naturalised$ in the sa!e #a", 5e$i1Strauss specified that the
linguistic sign is arbitrar" a priori but non1arbitrar" a posteriori. This
discussion leads us to keep t#o different ter!s, #hich #ill be useful
during the se!iological etension. We shall sa" that a s"ste! is arbitrar"
#hen its signs are founded not b" con$ention, but b" unilateral decision'
the sign is not arbitrar" in the language but it is in fashion% and #e shall
sa" that a sign is moti)ated #hen the relation bet#een its signified and its
signifier is analogical +2u"ssens has put for#ard, as suitable ter!s,
intrinsic semes for !oti$ated signs, and e*trinsic semes for un!oti$ated
ones,. It #ill therefore be possible to ha$e s"ste!s #hich are arbitrar" and
!oti$ated, and others #hich are non1arbitrar" and un!oti$ated.
II.4.!. The ar&itrary and the moti)ated in semiology In linguistics,
!oti$ation is li!ited to the partial plane of deri$ation or co!position% in
se!iolog", on the contrar", it #ill put to us !ore general proble!s. 8n
the one hand, it is possible that outside language s"ste!s !a" be found, in
#hich !oti$ation pla"s a great part. We shall then ha$e to establish in
#hat #a" analog" is co!patible #ith the discontinuous character #hich
up to no# has see!ed necessar" to signification% and after#ards ho#
paradig!atic series +that is, in #hich the ter!s are fe# and discrete, can
be established #hen the signifiers are analogs this #ill probabl" be the
case of (i!ages(, the se!iolog" of #hich is, for these reasons, far fro!
being established. 8n the other hand, it is highl" probable that a
se!iological in$entor" #ill re$eal the eistence of i!pure s"ste!s,
co!prising either $er" loose !oti$ations, or !oti$ations per$aded, so to
speak, #ith secondar" non1!oti$ations, as if, often, the sign lent itself to a
kind of conflict bet#een the !oti$ated and the un!oti$ated. This is
alread" to so!e etent the case of the !ost (!oti$ated( <one of language,
that of ono!atopoeia. 4artinet has pointed out, that the ono!atopoeic
!oti$ation #as acco!panied b" a loss of the double articulation +ouch,
#hich depends onl" on the second articulation, replaces the doubl"
articulated s"ntag! +it hurts+#$ "et the ono!atopoeia #hich epresses pain
is not eactl" the sa!e in .rench "aie# and in Aanish +au,, for instance.
This is because in fact !oti$ation here sub!its, as it #ere, to phonological
!odels #hich of course $ar #ith different languages' there is an
i!pregnation of the analogical b" the digital. 8utside language,
proble!atic s"ste!s, like the (language( of the bees, sho# the sa!e
a!biguit"' the hone"1gathering dances ha$e a $aguel" analogical $alue%
that at the entrance of the hi$e is frankl" !oti$ated +b" the direction of the
food,, but the #riggl" dance in a figure of eight is /uite un!oti$ated +it
refers to a distance,.17 .inall", and as a last ea!ple of such ill1defined
areas, certain trade1!arks used in ad$ertising consist of purel" abstract(
+non1analogical, shapes% the" can, ho#e$er, epress( a certain i!pression
+for instance one of (po#er(, #hich has a relation of affinit" #ith the
signified. The trade1!ark of the 2erliet lorries +a circle #ith a thick arro#
across it, does not in an" #a" (cop"( po#er 1 indeed, ho# could one (cop"(
po#er: 1 and "et suggests it through a latent analog"% the sa!e a!biguit"
is to be found in the signs of so!e ideographic #ritings +*hinese, for
instance,.
The coeistence of the analogical and the non1analogical therefore
see!s un/uestionable, e$en #ithin a single s"ste!. =et se!iolog" cannot
be content #ith a description ackno#ledging this co!pro!ise #ithout
tr"ing to s"ste!atise it, for it cannot ad!it a continuous differential since,
as #e shall see, !eaning is articulation. These proble!s ha$e not "et been
studied in detail, and it #ould be i!possible to gi$e a general sur$e" of
the!. The outline of an econo!" of signification +at the anthropological
le$el, can, ho#e$er, be percei$ed' in the language, for instance, the
+relati$e, !oti$ation introduces a certain order at the le$el of the first
+significant, articulation ' the (contract( is therefore in this case
underpinned b" a certain naturalisation of this a priori arbitrariness #hich
5B$i1Strauss talks about% other s"ste!s, on the contrar", can go fro!
!oti$ation to non1!oti$ation' for instance the set of the ritual puppets of
initiation of the Senoufo, cited b" 5B$i1Strauss in The Sa)age 2ind. It is
therefore probable that at the le$el of the !ost general se!iolog", #hich
!erges #ith anthropolog", there co!es into being a sort of circularit"
bet#een the analogical and the un!oti$ated' there is a double tendenc"
+each aspect being co!ple!entar" to the other, to naturalise the
un!oti$ated and to intellectualise the !oti$ated +that is to sa", to
culturalise it,. .inall", so!e authors are confident that digitalis!, #hich is
the ri$al of the analogical, is itself in its purest for! 1 binaris! 1 a
(reproduction( of certain ph"siological processes, if it is true that sight and
hearing, in the last anal"sis, function b" alternati$e selections.
II.". -(LU%
II.".1. 3alue in linguistics We ha$e said, or at least hinted, that to treat
the sign (in itself(, as the onl" link bet#een signifier and signified, is a
fairl" arbitrar" +although ine$itable, abstraction. We !ust, to conclude,
tackle the sign, no longer b" #a" of its (co!position(, but of its (setting('
this is the proble! of $alue. Saussure did not see the i!portance of this
notion at the outset, but e$en as earl" as his second Course in General
Linguistics, he increasingl" concentrated on it, and $alue beca!e an
essential concept for hi!, and e$entuall" !ore i!portant than that of
signification +#ith #hich it is not co1etensi$e,. 3alue bears a close
relation to the notion of the language +as opposed to speech,% its effect is
to de1ps"chologise linguistics and to bring it closer to econo!ics% it is
therefore central to structural linguistics. In !ost sciences, Saussure
obser$es, there is no coeistence of s"nchron" and diachron"' astrono!"
is a s"nchronic science +although the hea$enl" bodies alter,% geolog" is a
diachronic science +although it can stud" fied states1,% histor" is !ainl"
diachronic +a succession of e$ents,, although it can linger o$er so!e
(pictures(. =et there is a science in #hich these t#o aspects ha$e an e/ual
share' econo!ics +#hich include econo!ics proper, and econo!ic
histor",% the sa!e applies to linguistics, Saussure goes on to sa". This is
because in both cases #e are dealing #ith a s"ste! of e/ui$alence
bet#een t#o different things' #ork and re#ard, a signifier and a signified
+this is the pheno!enon #hich #e ha$e up to no# called signification#.
=et, in linguistics as #ell as in econo!ics, this e/ui$alence is not isolated,
for if #e alter one of its ter!s, the #hole s"ste! changes b" degrees. .or
a sign +or an econo!ic ($alue(, to eist, it !ust therefore be possible, on
the one hand, to e*change dissi!ilar things +#ork and #age, signifier and
signified,, and on the other, to compare si!ilar things #ith each other.
8ne can echange a fi$e1franc note for bread, soap or a cine!a ticket, but
one can also co!pare this banknote #ith ten1 or fift"1franc notes, etc.% in
the sa!e #a", a (#ord( can be (echanged( for an idea +that is, for
so!ething dissi!ilar,, but it can also be co!pared #ith other #ords +that
is, so!ething si!ilar,' in 0nglish the #ord !utton deri$es its $alue onl"
fro! its coeistence #ith sheep$ the !eaning is trul" fied onl" at the end
of this double deter!ination' signification and $alue. 3alue, therefore, is
not signification% it co!es, Saussure sa"s, (fro! the reciprocal situation of
the pieces of the language(. It is e$en !ore i!portant than signification'
(#hat /uantit" of idea or phonic !atter a sign contains is of less i!port
than #hat there is around it in the other signs('1 a prophetic sentence, if
one realises that it alread" #as the foundation of 5B$i1Strauss(s ho!olog"
and of the principle of taono!ies. Ha$ing thus carefull" distinguished,
#ith Saussure, signification and $alue, #e i!!ediatel" see that if #e
return to H&e!sle$(s strata +substance and for!,, the signification
partakes of the substance of the content, and $alue, of that of its for!
"mutton and sheep are in a paradig!atic relation as signifieds and not, of
course, as signifiers,.
II.".. The articulation In order to account for the double pheno!enon of
signification and $alue, Saussure used the analog" of a sheet of paper' if
#e cut out shapes in it, on the one hand #e get $arious pieces +-, 2, *,,
each of #hich has a )alue in relation to its neighbours, and, on the other,
each of these pieces has a recto and a $erso -hich ha)e &een cut out at the
same time +-1-(, 212(, *1*(,' this is the signification. This co!parison is
useful because it leads us to an original conception of the production of
!eaning' no longer as the !ere correlation of a signifier and a signified,
but perhaps !ore essentiall" as an act of simultaneously cutting out t#o
a!orphous !asses, t#o (floating kingdo!s( as Saussure sa"s. .or
Saussure i!agines that at the +entirel" theoretical, origin of !eaning,
ideas and sounds for! t#o floating, labile, continuous and parallel !asses
of substances% !eaning inter$enes #hen one cuts at the sa!e ti!e and at a
single stroke into these t#o !asses. The signs +thus produced, are
therefore articuli% !eaning is therefore an order #ith chaos on either side,
but this order is essentiall" a di)ision. The language is an inter!ediate
ob&ect bet#een sound and thought' it consists in uniting &oth -hile
simultaneously decomposing them. -nd Saussure suggests a ne# si!ile'
signifier and signified are like t#o superi!posed la"ers, one of air, the
other of #ater% #hen the at!ospheric pressure changes, the la"er of1 #ater
di$ides into #a$es1. in the sa!e #a", the signifier is di$ided into articuli.
These i!ages, of the sheet of paper as #ell as of the #a$es, enable us to
e!phasise a fact #hich is of the ut!ost i!portance for the future of
se!iological anal"sis' that language is the do!ain of articulations, and
the !eaning is abo$e all a cutting1out of shapes. It follo#s that the future
task of se!iolog" is far less to establish leicons of ob&ects than to
redisco$er the articulations #hich !en i!pose on realit"% looking into the
distant and perhaps ideal future, #e !ight sa" that se!iolog" and
taono!", although the" are not "et born, are perhaps !eant to be !erged
into a ne# science, arthrolog", na!el", the science of apportion!ent.