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$es its full definition onl" in the dialectical process #hich
unites one to the other' there is no language #ithout speech, and no speech outside
language' it is in this echange that the real linguistic prais is situated, as 4erleau1
6ont" has pointed out. -nd 3. 2rondal #rites, (- language is a purel" abstract
entit", a nor! #hich stands abo$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$e so!eti!es been identified +b" Trubet<ko" hi!self,,
thus thrusting outside the language all the non1rele$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$e field of i!agination, not b" !eans
of its (the!es(, as has been done until no#, but b" its for!s and its functions. 8r let
us sa", !ore broadl" but !ore clearl"' b" its signifiers !ore than b" its signifieds.
It can be seen fro! these brief indications ho# rich in etra1 or !eta1linguistic
de$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$e to se!i1
0uropean clothing in conte!porar" -frican countries, the birth of ne# patterns of
/uick feeding in industrial and urban societies,% ii, #hen econo!ic re/uire!ents
bring about the disappearance or pro!otion of certain !aterials +artificial tetiles,%
iii, #hen ideolog" li!its the in$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 +non1
linguistic, 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 sign1function 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$ised and #ith no si!ilarit" to an eisting
!odel +5B$i1Strauss 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 $ar #ith different languages' there is an
i!pregnation of the analogical b" the digital. 8utside language, proble!atic
s"ste!s, like the (language( of the bees, sho# the sa!e a!biguit"' the hone"1
gathering dances ha$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$i1
Strauss(s ho!olog" and of the principle of taono!ies. Ha$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.
+urther Read.n/:
B.o/ra0h1 2 &ar3.st )s1cholo/1 and L.n/u.st.cs 2 Saussure 2 ,ur4he.5
6a4o7son 2 L89.:Strauss 2 ,err.da
&ar3.st L.terar1 Cr.t.c.s5 2 +rance Su7;ect (rch.9e
)h.loso0h1 (rch.9e < 5ar3.sts.or/