Meaning of signifier and signified explained simply

According to de Saussure, the linguistic sign unites, “not a name and a thing, but a concept and an acoustic image”. The acoustic image is called the signifier : it is not the material sound, but the psychic imprint of this sound. the concept, called signified , contains the distinctive features that characterize this sign in relation to the features of other signs of the language. The linguistic sign is therefore defined as a two-sided psychic entity: signifier / signified. For example, the French word tree (arbre) is a linguistic sign associating the sound of "arbre"(signifier) with the meaning the type of plant which is a tree (signified) 

Saussure distinguishes four characteristics of his linguistic sign theory:

The arbitrariness of the sign: the link between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, because the same concept can be associated with different acoustic images depending on the language .

The linear character of the signifier  : “the signifier, being auditory in nature, unfolds in time”. The elements of the signifiers are therefore necessarily presented one after the other, in a linear succession: they form a  successive chain.

The synchronic  immutability of the sign  : the signifier associated with a given concept is imposed on the linguistic community: a speaker cannot decide to modify it arbitrarily.

The diachronic  mutability of the sign: linguistic signs can nevertheless be modified by time, by linguistic evolution ( History of phonetics and modification of the signifier, of the signified or of their relation).

Saussure's Sign Theroy Explained (basic concepts and examples)

Saussure's linguistic theory semiotic insofar as it interprets language as a set of signs. The linguist distinguishes two elements in the sign : the signified and the signifier . As Saussure wrote: “The signified and the signifier contract a link” . 

Signified 

The signified designates the concept, that is to say the mental representation of a thing. Contrary to popular belief, language is not a repertoire of words that reflect pre-existing things or concepts by affixing labels. If this were the case, the words of one language, but also its grammatical categories would always have their exact counterpart in another. This observation leads Saussure to distinguish meaning and value  : "mutton" and "sheep" have the same meaning, but not the same value, since English for its part distinguishes sheep , the animal, from its meat, mutton.

Significant 

The signifier designates according to Saussure' is the acoustic image of a word. What matters in a word is not its sound itself, but the phonic differences that distinguish it from others. Its value stems from these differentiations. Each language builds its lexicon from a limited number of phonemes, characterized as signifieds, not by their own and positive quality, but by what sets them apart: rolling an “r” in French is of no consequence for comprehension; not doing so in Arabic leads to confusion.

see also: Signifier and signified

The sign taken in its entirety 

Saussure's fundamental idea is that language is a closed system of signs. Every sign is defined in relation to others, by pure difference (negatively), and not by its own characteristics (positively): this is why Saussure speaks of a “system”. Named however (after his death) "father of structuralism  ", he never, at any time, and this is notable, used the term "structure": he always spoke of "  system  ".

Arbitrariness of the sign 

Language simultaneously cuts out a signifier from the unformed mass of sounds and a signified from the unformed mass of concepts.

The relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary and unmotivated: in English for example, there is no essential binding link between the sound "tree" and the object that can be named anything else by other languages. 

see also: Arbitrariness of the sign, Meaning of signifier and signified explained simply

More on Saussure's linguistic theory:

langue and parole
De Saussure's nature of the linguistic sign

Ferdinand de Saussure's Linguistic Revolution- summary, analysis and review
Ferdinand de Saussure and structuralism 

Langue and Parole Explained Briefly

Langue and Parole are terms coined by linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. de Saussure's ultimate goal is to propose a coherent theory of language, which will be able to grasp its object with the greatest possible rigor and clarity, distinguishing the linguistic phenomenon from any related phenomenon. This leads Saussure to distinguish Langauge, Langue and Parole.

By Language, Saussure means the general faculty of being able to express oneself by means of signs. This faculty is not specific to natural languages ​​but it characterizes all forms of human communication. By Langue , Saussure on the other hand means a set of signs used by a community to communicate: French, English or German, to name just a few examples.

Parole (Speech) is, for Saussure, the concrete use of linguistic signs in a specific context. Through this concept of Parole, Saussure attempts to distinguish the concrete use of language from language itself, understood as a set of signs.

See also: 

De Saussure's nature of the linguistic sign, 

Arbitrariness of the sign

Paradigm and syntagm 

Ferdinand de Saussure's Linguistic Revolution- summary, analysis and review
Ferdinand de Saussure and structuralism 

PARADIGM AND SYNTAGM - explanation

Saussure points out that the value of signs is culture-specific. The French mouton may have the same meaning as the English sheep, but it does not have the same value. Why? Because English has the terms mutton and sheep, a distinction which is not available in French. He emphasizes that a sign gains its value from its relation to other similar values. Without such a relationship signification would not exist

SYNTAGM

This is a very useful insight in the analysis of signs. Language is linear: you produce one sound after another; words follow one another. When we think of signs interlinked in this way (for example she+can+go), then we are thinking of them in terms of what Saussure calls a syntagm. There is a syntagmatic relationship between them.

PARADIGM

However, at the same time as we produce these signs linked to one another in time, we also do something which is outside that temporal sequence: we choose a sign from a whole range of alternative signs. So, when a journalist writes:

IRA terrorists overran an army post in Londonderry in Northern Ireland

s/he chooses each sign from a range of alternatives. S/he could say:

'IRA active units', 'IRA paramilitaries', 'IRA freedom fighters', 'IRA lunatics'

S/he could refer to Londonderry as 'Derry', the name more commonly used by nationalists; s/he could refer to Northern Ireland as 'Ulster', the 'Six Counties', the 'occupied counties' etc.

When we look at this range of possibilities, we are examining a paradigm. We are examining the paradigmatic relationship between signs. Not uncommonly, syntagm and paradigm may be conceived of as two axes:

The signs signify because of their value, which derives from the relationship between them. How can you say that repeated occurrences of the same word are in fact the same word? Saussure gives the example of two 8.45pm expresses from Geneva to Paris, leaving at 24 hour intervals. For us, they are the same express, we are talking about the same entity when we refer to it, even though its carriages, locomotive and personnel are probably quite different on the two occasions. But it is not such material identities we refer to when we refer to the '8.45 Geneva-Paris express'; rather it is the relational identity given in the timetable - this is the 8.45 Geneva-Paris express because it is not the 7.45 Geneva-Heidelberg express, the 8.45 Geneva-Turin etc.

We can examine the syntagms and paradigms in any medium. In Advertising as Communication Gillian Dyer takes the example of a photographic sign, namely the use of a stallion in a Marlboro ad. The paradigm from which the stallion is drawn includes ponies, donkeys, mules, mares. The connotations of stallion rely, on the reader's cultural knowledge of a system which can relate a stallion to feelings of freedom, wide open prairies, virility, wildness, individuality, etc.. Why were these choices made? What is communicated by them?

One way to examine the ideological meaning suggested by the signs in the message is to see how the message would differ if another were chosen from the relevant paradigm. 

For more on the nature of the sign an de Saussure's thought: 

De Saussure's nature of the linguistic sign, 
The Sign
Signifier and signified

Langue and parole, 

The arbitrary nature of the Sign / arbitrariness of the sign

Ferdinand de Saussure's Linguistic Revolution- summary, analysis and review

You might be interested in: 

  

The Arbitrariness of the Sign - explanation and dfinition

One of the key aspects of Ferdinand de Sassure's theory and of structuralism is the notion of the arbitrariness of the sign. In fact, Saussure stressed the arbitrariness of the sign as the first principle of semiology I (the study of signs which includes linguistics). By saying that signs are arbitrary, Saussure was saying that there is no good reason why we use the sequence of sounds 'sister' to mean a female sibling. We could just as well use 'soeur', 'Schwester', 'sorella'. For that matter, we could just as well use the sequence of sounds: 'brother'. Of course, as he pointed out, we don't have any choice in the matter. If we want to talk about female siblings in the English language, we can only talk about 'female siblings' or 'sisters'.

The point of the arbitrariness of the sign is that there is not compelling necessary conncetion between signifier and signified, and therefore language as a system determines meaning which does not originate outside of language. Saussure saw language as being an ordered system of signs whose meanings are arrived at arbitrarily by a cultural convention. 

Understanding De Saussure's nature of the linguistic sign can lead us to undersatnd why the source of meaning for him is difference. Arbitrariness and difference go together since there is no positive bond between a signifier and a signified, only the relative position of the that bond withing the system of language. 

For more on the nature of the sign an de Saussure's thought: 

De Saussure's nature of the linguistic sign, 
The Sign
Signifier and signified

Langue and parole, 

Paradigm and syntagm 

Ferdinand de Saussure's Linguistic Revolution- summary, analysis and review

You might be interested in: 

  

SIGNIFIER AND SIGNIFIED - simple explanation (de Saussure)

Ferdinand de Saussure defines the lingual sign as made up of two parts that form the whole sign (here you can read about de Saussure's definition of the sign). Saussure actually saw the division of the sign into sound image and concept as a bit ambiguous. So he refined the idea by saying it might make things clearer if we referred to the concept as the signified and the sound image as the signifier.

Saussure shifted the emphasis from the notion that there is some kind of 'real world' out there to which we all refer in words and is the same to all of us. Obviously, a language community has much of this real world in common, otherwise we couldn't communicate. But while de Saussure is definitly not one of those philosophers who deny material reality, he does say that when it comes to the nature of the lingual sing relaity in itself does not play a part. Lingual sings according to de Saussure do not reflect reality, and language does not simply describe the world. Language for de Saussure is a system of interalitions between signs and between signifiers and signifieds. This is very important in the broader context of de Sassure's theory and Structuralism. The signifier does not point to an actual entity in the world, it points only to the mental meaning called signified.  

For more on the nature of the sign an de Saussure's thought: 

De Saussure's nature of the linguistic sign, 
The Sign

Langue and parole, 

The arbitrary nature of the Sign / arbitrariness of the sign

Paradigm and syntagm 

Ferdinand de Saussure's Linguistic Revolution- summary, analysis and review

You might be interested in: 

  

THE SIGN (Structuralisim, De Saussure) - Explanation and definition

The sign or the nature of the lingual sign is a central topic for both linguistics, structuralism and culture theory at large. The debate about how signs function became to be closely related with the debate about how society it self functions.

The initial idea was that a sign 'denotes' or 'refers to' something 'out there in the real world' (called referent).  Words are labels attached to things. That seems a pretty sensible idea at first - we can readily see how 'London' can denote something 'out there'. But as soon as we get on to 'city', things start to get a bit vaguer. Which city? And when we get on to words like 'ask' or 'tradition', the relationship starts to fall apart.

Swiss linguist Fredinand de Saussure tried to get around this problem by saying that 'the linguistic sign does not unite a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound image’.

Structuralism (i.e. the philosophy which derived later from Saussurean linguistics), then, 'brackets the referent'. In other words, the thing referred to (the referent) is taken out of the relationship and is replaced by 'concept'.

To put is more simply, the definition of the sign is not a symbol that points at something in the world but rather a symbol which points to a meaning, detached from any material objects. 

The sign according to de Saussure as made up of two parts: the signifier (the material aspect: sounds of written signs) and the signified (the mental meaning). For more on this matter see our summary on signifier and signified.  

These ideas by de Saussure may seem irrlevant at first glance but when they are combined with his entire theory you can see that they go a very long way.

For more on the nature of the sign an de Saussure's thought: 

De Saussure's nature of the linguistic sign, 
Signifier and signified

Langue and parole, 

The arbitrary nature of the Sign / arbitrariness of the sign

Paradigm and syntagm 

Ferdinand de Saussure's Linguistic Revolution- summary, analysis and review
Ferdinand de Saussure and structuralism 

You might be interested in: 

  

Ferdinand de Saussure and structuralism - summary

Ferdinand de Saussure is considered the father of Structuralism, which looks at the units of a system and the rules that make it work regardless of content 

   In language the units are words (or better, the phonemes of a language) and the rules are the forms of grammar that order words to produce meaning.

   Rules are generated by the mind itself (universal).

   We could not perceive reality without some sort of  “grammar” or system to organize it.

   All systems have three properties in common:     

1) Wholeness. The system functions as a whole, not just as a collection of independent parts. 

2) Transformation. The system is not static but capable of change. New units can enter the system but are still subjected to the rules of a system (ex. format – to format).

3) Self-regulation  (related to transformation). You can add elements to the system but you can’t change its basic structure. Transformations never lead to anything outside the system.

   The basic linguistic unit or SIGN has two parts: concept and sound image, whose association produces meaning 

   The sound image is not the physical sound but rather the psychological imprint of the sound.

   A SIGN can also be defined as the combination of a signifier (sound image) and a signified (concept). (see a separate summary on Signifier and signified)

The SIGN as union of a signifier and a signified has two main  characteristics:

1) The bond between sfr and sfd is ARBITRARY. There is no natural, intrinsic or logical relation between them. They are related only because a community has agreed upon it. 

This makes it possible to separate sfr and sfd or to change the relationship between them. A single sfr can be associated with more than one sfd thus producing ambiguity and multiplicity of meaning (Ex. I gained a pound)

There may be some kinds of signs that seem less arbitrary than others, like onomatopoeic words in natural language or other types of semiotic systems (systems of signs) like pantomine, sign language or gestures, but they are still conventional and agreed upon by a community.

2) The second characteristic of the SIGN is that the sfr exists in TIME, and time is LINEAR. You can’t say or write two words at a time. So language operates in a linear sequence, in a chain.

 

LINGUISTIC VALUE

According to Saussure, no ideas preexist language, it shapes ideas and makes them expressible. Language is not a substance, but a form, a structure.

Thought and sound are like the front and back of a piece of paper, you can distinguish between them but you can’t separate them. 

   Saussure refers to the system of language as a whole as Langue and to individual utterances as Parole.

   It takes a community to set up the relations between any particular sound image and any particular concept in order to form specific paroles. An individual can’t fix the VALUE for any combination.

   VALUE is the collective meaning assigned to a sign on the basis of the difference with all the other signs in the signifying system.

 

Saussure distinguishes between VALUE and SIGNIFICATION.

   SIGNIFICATION  or meaning is the relationship established between a sfr and a sfd.

   VALUE, by contrast, is the relation between various SIGNS in the signifying system (which are all interdependent).

   The most important relation between signifiers in a system, the one that creates VALUE is DIFFERENCE. One sfr has meaning in a system not because it is connected to a particular sfd, but because it is NOT any other sfr (binary opposites)

   Everything in the system is based on the relations between its units.

   The most important of them, according to Saussure, is the SYNTAGMATIC one (axis of contiguity) as opposed to a PARADIGMATIC relation (axis of substitution). (see Paradigm and syntagm)

   SIGNS are stored in our memory in associative groups, but associative relations do not belong to the structure of language itself, while syntagmatic relations are a product of this structure.

See also: De Saussure's nature of the linguistic sign, Langue and parole, The arbitrary nature of the Sign.

You might be interested in: 

  

De Saussure - The Arbitrary Nature of the Sign - summary

An important part of Ferdinand de Saussure's linguist theory in "Course in General Linguistics" is what he terms "The arbitrary nature of the Sign". Following his discussion about the nature of the linguistic sign de Saussure argues that the relations between the absolute majority of signifies to signified is arbitrary. With the small exception of onomatopoeia (words that sound like what they refer to) There is no imperative connection between words and their meanings. This can be easily proved through the fact that different languages have different words to refer to the same things.

The arbitrary nature of the sign or the arbitrariness of the sign doesn't mean that it is false or that you can just use any word you want to refer to whatever you want. What is does mean is that language is a self contained structure built on inner relations between words as opposed to external relations between words and things. One interesting implication of the arbitrary nature of the sign is that language is not built to meet a preexisting reality, but rather the other way around.

See also: De Saussure's nature of the linguistic sign, Langue and parole, Paradigm and syntagm
Ferdinand de Saussure and structuralism. 

You might be interested in: 

  

      

Ferdinand de Saussure - langue and parole - Explanation and Summary

Central to Ferdinand de Saussure's linguistic theory introduced in "Course in General Linguistics" is the distinction between "langue" and "parole". For de Saussure, langue (language) is the abstract structure or system of conveying meaning while parole (speech) is the particular use of language (somewhat but not completely similar to Noam Chomsky's linguistic competence and performance). De Saussure gives the example of Chess, the game which exists as a set a rules and functions (langue) with endless possibilities to be played out (parole).   

The importance of de Saussure's distinction starts in the fact that langue obviously determines any possible parole. While parole is individual langue exists only as a social entity that no one has any full control over. Since it precedes parole, langue should be in de Saussure's view the focus of linguistic inquiry. But parole is still important since it is only through the idiosyncratic manifestations of speech (parole) that we can access the langue.

The distinction between langue and parole is also important since it is central to de Saussure's structuralist view of language as a self contained system of signification. Chess exists before any actual game and it's not up to the players do decide on the rules. If you try to play checkers with Chess pieces no one will be able or want to play with you, that is you will not be understood. But when we play Chess, or use language, it's not about the pieces by themselves but their perspective relationships within the context of the game's setting and rules. This leads us to how de Saussure thinks of language as a system of inner relations between words that relate to each other and not referential reality (see The arbitrary nature of the Sign) . This means that to anything we say there is an underlying structure which determines its possibility.

See also:

langue and parole
De Saussure's nature of the linguistic sign

Signifier and signified

Langue and parole, 

Arbitrariness of the sign

Paradigm and syntagm 

Ferdinand de Saussure's Linguistic Revolution- summary, analysis and review
Ferdinand de Saussure and structuralism 

You might be interested in: 

  

De Saussure – The Nature of the Linguistic Sign – summary

When discussing the nature of the linguist sign de Saussure criticizes the notion that things precede words. When relating to the lingual sign what de Saussure essentially does is to replace actual referential reality with the signified. What the signifier points to is not something which exists outside of language, but rather to a meaning which is contained within human consciousness. The division between signifier and signified, which together compose Saussure's lingual sign, is the basis for his subsequent proposition that everything gains it meaning out of being in structural oppositional relations with other components. 

When discussing the nature of the linguist sign de Saussure makes his famous statement about to lingual sign being arbitrary. The arbitrariness of the lingual sing is easily demonstrated by pointing to the fact that different languages have different signs for the same denotations. But this points to another matter. Were words representations of preexisting concepts all languages will have parallel words. But we do know that different languages cover the world of meaning with differently divided semantic networks. This means that language does not simply describe reality, but is in fact something separate and autonomous from it. When de Saussure says that the lingual sign is arbitrary he means it not it the sense that anyone can make up words, quite the opposite, signs according to Saussure are all conventions that are socially constructed. The linguistic sign, in other words, is arbitrary but is not open for free choice; its meaning is imposed on us by our linguistic surrounding.    

De Saussure's ideas regarding the nature of the linguistic signs were of huge influence in the 20^th century and were the corner stone of both structuralism and semiotics. Saussure's revolution is in making language relational into itself, it is not fixed nor predetermined, and it was now up to philosophy, sociology, linguistics and other adjacent fields to examine the manner in which a signifier is tied to a signified.

See also: 
Langue and Parole

De Saussure's nature of the linguistic sign, 

Arbitrariness of the sign

Paradigm and syntagm 

Ferdinand de Saussure's Linguistic Revolution- summary, analysis and review
Ferdinand de Saussure and structuralism 

Saussure's Sign Theroy Explained

Don't just read the summary, get the book:

Ferdinand de Saussure's Linguistic Revolution- summary, analysis and review

Ferdinand de Saussure is responsible for one of the most dramatic intellectual shifts in the 20^th century. It was de Saussure who moved to world from an essentialist perception of reality to a representational and structure dependant one. In a sense, de Saussure's thought is another step away from our ability to know anything about the world following Kant and Hegel's. de Saussure left after him the conclusion that, since everything is structure related, we can never have any stable and essential knowledge of anything. That there is nothing which is absolutely "there", only something which is represented in a system dependant manner.

Synchronic linguistics, rather than diachronic one, detaches language from the historical progression of the world, which leads to de Saussure detaching the lingual sign from its referent. de Saussure's distinction between Langue and Parole sets language is first and foremost a cultural-social mechanism which exists outside single individuals. de Saussure's notion of the lingual sing as being composed from the signifier and the signified "marginalizes" the actual referential world in favor of its symbolic representations. This argument by de Saussure led to serious question regarding the relation between the signifier and the signified which haunt western intellectual tradition to this day. One of deSaussure's key notion were in regards to the nature of the linguistic sign. de Saussure's ideas regarding the arbitrariness of the lingual sing gave rise to the understanding that the relation between language and reality, between the signifier and the signified, is socially constructs. Many a things have been signed off since de Saussure as being socially constructed. Other important concepts and considerations that were introduced by de Saussure are those of paradigmatic and syntagmatic.  

de Saussure view of the language as a system or differences is fundamental for the subsequent structuralist movement which sought to map those system of difference which constructed social reality. This is partly why de Saussure was and still is such a huge influence and founding father of 20^th and 21^st century cultural studies and critical theory. 

see Saussure's Sign Theroy Explained

Don't just read the summary, get the book: