THE HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY
Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies 中文及雙語學系
B.A. (HONS) CHINESE & BILINGUAL STUDIES
CBS319: Symbolic Communication across Languages
REFERENCE SYLLABUS &
LECTURE NOTES (Weeks 1 & 2, Part A)
Lecturer: Prof Daniel So
Tutor: Mr Thomas Pang
January 2014
i
SYMBOLIC COMMUNICATION ACROSS LANGUAGES
Contents
Topics
Page
1.
Reference Syllabus
ii
2.
Coursework Assessment
vii
3.
Course assessment
vii
4.
Score to grade conversion scheme
viii
5.
Lecture outline
ix
6.
Notes for the first couple of lectures
x
Subject Code
Subject Title
CBS319 (Reference Syllabus)
Symbolic Communication across Languages
Credit Value
3
Level
3
Pre-requisite /Co-requisite/
Nil
Exclusion
Objectives
This subject aims to provide a conceptual grounding for students in
body-language and sign-mediated communication (SiMC) with
special reference to its within-culture and between-culture variation as
well as its application in corporate communication. Specifically the
subject aims to (1) give them a general orientation about the human
species as homo significans/symbolicus, (2) develop among them a
basic understanding of the nature and the workings of major cultural
signs such as icons, indices and symbols, as well as body-language
from communicative, semiotic perspectives. Wherever appropriate,
exemplification will be done with cases taken from the corporate
sector in Chinese, and non-Chinese cultures so that students’ cultural
outlooks may be broadened and their understanding of the connection
between the matter of this subject and corporate communication may
be strengthened.
ii
Intended Learning
Outcomes (ILOs)
Category A: Professional/academic knowledge and skills
On successfully completing the subject, students will be able to:
1. articulate the basic workings of human communication with
reference to sign-mediated & body-language communication;
2. differentiate between different kinds of cultural and
body-language signs
3. discuss in an intelligent manner the definitive qualities of mega
cultural signs, writing & major body-language signs from the
perspective of SiMC
4. demonstrate their awareness concerning the within-culture and
between-culture variation in the interpretation and use of
cultural and body-language signs
Category B: Attributes for all-roundedness
1. enunciate the implications of ‘humankind as homo significans’
2. show an ability to identify how different strands of the subject
matter in the bilingual communication may inform one another
Indicative Syllabus
The subject matter is organised around the following themes:
Week
Subject matter to be covered
Part A
1–9
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
SiMC among esp. high-intelligence creatures
Humans as Homo significans/symbolicus
The uniqueness & workings of human SiMC
Models & typology of cultural signs
Mega cultural signs
Development of cultural signs & their variation
Hieroglyphs & Hanzi from SiMC perspectives
Part B
10 – 14
h. Non-verbal behaviour languages, particularly
body language & movement,
sign-mediated communication:
i.
kinesic behaviour
ii.
proxemic norms
iii. haptic perception
iv.
chronemic cues
i. Paralinguistic devices, etc.
as a form of
iii
Teaching/Learning
Methodology
Subject matter is delivered in lectures and consolidated in seminars.
Learning in this subject is facilitated via self-formed study groups,
small-group meetings with teachers, revision of subject matter via
quizzes. Students are provided with an opportunity to consolidate
their grip on a Part A &/or Part B topic in the form of respectively a
short written assignment OR an oral presentation (OP). Feedback
about their coursework performance will be provided with close
reference to the ILOs. Their grip on the subject matter in general is
assessed in the form of an end-of-semester examination. Students
will be given opportunities to request for further feedback about
their performance during the review session of their exam-scripts.
Assessment
Methods in
Alignment with
Intended Learning
Outcomes
Specific assessment
methods/tasks
%
ILOs to be assessed
A1
A2
A3
A4
B1
B2
1. Two Oral Quizzes on
respectively Parts A & B (5
marks each)
10
A good fraction of the above
2. Two Written Quizzes on
Part A (10 marks each)
20
A good fraction of the above
3. A short Written
Assignment on Part A1 OR a
Group OP2 on Part B. Both
may be done on group or
individual basis so long as
group size = three or less
10
Any of the above
4. End of semester Exam
(written)
60
All of the above
Total
100
At least five bonus, gratuitous marks will be awarded for good
seminar participation.
The main text should not exceed 800 words. There will be penalties if the word limit is
exceeded by more than two per cent.
2
15 – 20 minutes.
1
iv
Student Study
Effort Required
Class contact:

Lectures
28 Hrs.

Seminars (including OP)
13 Hrs.

Meeting with subject teachers
1 Hr.
Other student study effort:

Preparing for the exam
35 Hrs.

Meeting coursework requirements
35 Hrs.
Total student study effort
Reading List and
References
112 Hrs.
Introductory
Battistini, Matilde. Simboli e allegorie. [English Title] Symbols and
allegories in art; translated by Stephen Sartarelli. Los Angeles :
The J. Paul Getty Museum, c2005
Bruce-Mitford, Miranda. The illustrated book of signs & symbols.
Westmount, Quebec : Reader's Digest Asso. Ltd., 1996
Dennis-Bryan, Kim. Signs & Symbols: an illustrated guide to their
origins and meanings. USA: DK Publishing, 2008
Impelluso, Lucia. Natura e i suoi simboli. [English Title] Nature and
its symbols; translated by Stephen Sartarelli. Los Angeles,
Calif. : J.P. Getty Museum, c2004.
Sassoon, Rosemary & A. Gaur. Signs, symbols and icons. Exeter,
UK: Intellect Books, 1997 (Electronic version available)
Smith, Dinitia. “A Thinking Bird or Just Another Birdbrain?” New
York Times October 9, 1999
Wilson, Penelope. Hieroglyphs : a very short introduction. Oxford :
Oxford University Press, 2004
大野信長：《戰國武將家紋軍旗事典》，臺北：流遠， 2011。
（譯者：孫玉珍）
唐漢：《圖說漢字密碼》，1-4 冊，香港：中華書局， 2004。
Technical (selected chapters)
Adler, Ronald B & George Rodman. Understanding human
communication. 10th Edn., NY: Oxford University Press, 2009
Argyle, Michael. Bodily Communication. London: Methuen & Co.
Ltd., 1988
Bloom, Jonathan. Minaret, symbol of Islam. Oxford: Oxford
University Press for the Board of the Faculty of Oriental Studies,
c1989
Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics: the basics. 2nd Edn., London & NY:
Routledge, 2007
v
DeFrancis, John. The Chinese Language: Facts and Fantasy.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1984
DePaulo, P. J. (1992). Applications of Nonverbal Behavior
Research in Marketing and Management. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.),
Applications of Nonverbal Behavioral Theories and Research
(pp.63-87). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Eckman, P., Friesen, W., & Ellsworth, P. (1971). Emotion in the
human face: Guidelines for research and in integration of
findings. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Fiske, John. Introduction to communication studies. 3rd Edn.,
London ; New York : Routledge, 2011
Kemp, Martin. Christ to Coke: How Image Becomes Icon. Oxford
University Press, 2011
Kendon, Adam. Conducting Interaction Patterns of Behavior in
Focused Encounters.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1990
Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages: Implicit communication of
emotion and attitudes (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mugglestone, Lynda. Talking Proper: the Rise of Accent as Social
Symbol. Clarendon Press, 1995
Pan, Y. Politeness in Chinese Face-to-Face Interaction. Stamford:
Ablex Publishing Corporation, 2000
Sassoon, Rosemary & A. Gaur. Signs, symbols and icons:
Pre-history to the computer age. UK: Intellect Books, 1997*
Soltes, O.Z. (2005). Our Sacred Signs: how Jewish, Christian, and
Muslim art draw from the same source. Cambridge: Westview
Press
Wilkinson, Richard H. Symbol & magic in Egyptian art. London :
Thames and Hudson, c1994
Wood, Julia. Communication Mosaics. Belmont, CA: Thomson
Learning, 2006
王銘銘, 潘忠黨主編: 《象徵與社會 : 中國民間文化的探討》，
天津 : 天津人民, 1997
李杰群等：《非言語交际概論》，北京: 北京大学出版社，2002
易思羽：《中國符號》，南京：江蘇人民出版社，2005
黃亞平：《漢字符號學》，上海：上海古籍出版社， 2001
References
Fox-Davies, Arthur Charles. A complete guide to heraldry;
illustrated by Graham Johnston. New York, N.Y. : Skyhorse
Pub., c2007
Hyland, Angus & Steven Bateman. Symbol. London: Laurence King
Publishing, 2011
Tresidder, Jack. (Ed.) The complete dictionary of symbols. San
Francisco, Calif. : Chronicle Books, 2005
何九盈 胡雙寶 張猛主編：《中國漢字文化大觀》，北京：北京
大學出版社，1995
vi
COURSEWORK ASSESSMENT (PART A)
The purpose of the quizzes is to help consolidate students' understanding of the subject matter.
The oral quiz will be held at the first 15 minutes of the seminar. Questions related to contents
of the previous lecture and/or related parts of the lecture notes will be put to students
according to the alphabetical order of their last names. However other students may join in.
The quality of their responses will be recorded and will serve as the basis for dispensing the 5
marks assigned to this coursework component of Part A.
Students may use the occasion of the quiz to make relevant queries and/or put forward their
point of view (including offering additional examples, help making clarification, showing
disagreement, etc.). Such participation from students will also be recorded with reference to
quality of their articulation, understanding of the subject matter and evidence of novel,
independent thinking… the records will serve as the basis for dispensing the bonus marks.
Students will be informed of the raw marks given them for the oral quiz and their participation
at the last seminar of Part A.
The two written quizzes are held in Week 5 and Week 9 respectively in the seminar. The
quizzes comprise mostly multiple-choice and fill-in-the-blank items that are constructed
according to lecture content, lecture notes and strongly recommended readings. Each quiz will
also have at least one open-ended item.
As indicated in the syllabus, 10 marks are assigned to a short written essay (Part A) & an
oral presentation (Part B). The two may be done on an individual/group basis. Students are
required to do only one of the two assignments. For students interested in working on a Part A
topic and therefore opt for the essay, please note that the main text should not be more than
800 words. Attribution of sources used in the text must be observed; the cited works must be
listed at the end of the essay in proper format. Students are expected to choose a topic for the
essay themselves; they may use past exam questions as the topic. In addition to the aforesaid
requirements, marks will be given with reference to subject objectives, subject ILOs and
quality of the presentation. The deadline for this assignment will be announced in due course.
It is anticipated to be around Week 13 or 14.
vii
Score (Moderated)* to Grade Conversion Scheme**
Descriptor
Extent of ILOs
in evidence
39 or below
40 - 44
45-49
50 - 55
56 - 64
65 - 69
70 - 79
80 - 89
90 or above
F
unsatisfactory
D
Less than satisfactory
D+
Barely satisfactory
C
C+
Not visible
Small
Satisfactory
Wholly satisfactory
B
Good
B+
Very Good
A
Excellent
A+
Outstanding
Moderate
High
Very high
*The scores you receive for your assignments and shown on the exam answer
book are therefore raw scores.
**For Prof So’s subjects only.
Although the maximum score of the bonus marks for seminar participation is set
at only five, they may make a difference in the final grade that you receive as
they are added to the moderated-score total, i.e. the final moderated total = the
moderated-score + the bonus marks.
viii
LECTURE OUTLINE (A)
1.
The uniqueness of being human: a Sign-mediated Communication (SiMC )
perspective
2.
Humans as homo significans/symbolicus
3.
The Communication (C) in SiMC
4.
A model of signs according to Saussure
5.
A model of signs according to Peirce
6.
Basic types of signs
7.
Cultural Iconic Signs; Cultural Indexical-signs & Cultural Symbolic-signs
8.
Cultural Signs
a.
b.
9.
Simple (design)  Complex
Variation over time & across culture
Mega Cultural Signs & their power
10. Earliest scripts from a semiotic perspective
a.
b.
The Cuneiform & The Hieroglyphs
The Hanzi
ix
Notes for the first couple of lectures
These notes, including those to be distributed later, are not my lecture scripts. Instead they
are meant to be read for your preparation for my lectures. Accordingly the notes are compact
and condense; their enunciation and elaboration are to be provided in class. In this subject
having a good grip of these notes is a necessary but an insufficient condition for good
performance. For students who wish to be awarded with a good grade (i.e., C+ & above),
they are expected attend classes regularly, take notes in class, and have a good reading (i.e.
not just causally read them once) of some of the works mentioned in the following paragraph
and other parts of the Notes, as well as those listed in the reference syllabus.
This subject is introductory and descriptive in nature. Theoretical, conceptual matter is kept
to a minimum. However, for those students who are interested in sign-mediated
communication (SiMC) and wish to develop a grip of the logic of its workings, then they will
have to spend efforts to read some of the works of a relatively technical nature, for example
the first 60 pages of Chandler’s Semiotics; 3 Part 1 of Sassoon & Gaur’s Signs, Symbols and
Icons; Fiske’s Introduction to Communication Studies (at least chapters 3 & 5), and Adler &
Rodman’s Understanding Human Communication (chapters 1 & 3). You are welcome to
bring to your teachers’ attention difficulties and issues encountered in my lectures, and in
your reading. For those of common interest, I’ll respond to them in my lectures.
In addition to the objectives spelled out in the syllabus, this subject serves an additional
purpose and function. The curricular core of the BACBS programme covers language, culture
and communication all of which are immense in scope. It is expected that most if not all of
you will have problems coming to grips with the essential details of each of these topics, let
alone their connection. However, a study of cultural signs will provide you with a convenient
mechanism to have a glimpse at some of the essential details of these major topics as well as
some of the basic links between them. In other words, a study of SiMC will enable you to have
a better understanding of these topics and their connection. Attempts will be made to see if
such benefits, specified as Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) included in the syllabus, are in
evidence in respectively your course-work assignments and your outputs in the exam. The
Marking Schemes for respectively course-work and the Exam are designed with close
reference to these ILOs.
Or its abridged & older version “Semiotics for Beginners” which is available in the subject
web-page.
3
x
Prelude
Those of you who have taken CBS297 (CBS2401 in the 4YC curriculum) will recall one of
the organizing principles underpinning my subjects is the belief that part of the mission of
professors like me is to expose students to a few mega ideas/issues of the times. These
ideas/issues should be of sufficient width and depth so that for students who get interested,
their quest for a clearer and better understanding of these ideas/issues can be sustained for a
good part of the rest of their lives. They won’t be bored intellectually; they will always have
something to think about.
Lectures 1 & 2
The uniqueness of being human: a SiMC4 perspective
A common question addressed by all academic disciplines in the humanities is What are the
qualities that turn beasts like us into a human person? In CBS297 we have dealt with this
question from an LMC perspective. Here the same question is addressed from the perspective
of SiMC. However, the significance of SiMC is not confined to its relevance to the question
What makes us human. Cultural signs, like language, are not just a medium; our abilities to
use them are not just a definitive attribute of humanity. Cultural signs, like language, are
central to our human experience; together they determine to a great extent the contents and the
quality of our life; not only do cultural signs and languages make us human individuals, they
are also pillars of our civilization. Humanities/Language-majors are expected to be able to talk
about them: what they are, how they work and in what way they enable us to become
individuals and members of a community at the same time.
A study of SiMC also serves another purpose: communication, culture (vs. nature), language
as well as their inter-connection are major topics in the humanities.
Humanities/Language-majors are expected to be able to tackle these topics in the manner
described in the subject ILOs. However these topics by themselves are already very big and
not easy to come to grips with, let alone their inter-connection. Fortunately for us, a study of
SiMC offers us a convenient platform and framework to examine these topics separately, as
well as in connection of one another. Specifically SiMC gives us a perspective to address
issues such as the uniqueness of Human Communication, the distinction between Nature &
Culture, the derivation of Culture from Nature, the connection between cultural signs and
civilization …
4
LMC is also SiMC because language is a system of verbal signs. However, in this subject,
the ‘S’ in SiMC refers to cultural signs only.
xi
… The search for the defining attributes of humanity. Decades ago, it was believed a good
number of traits distinguished humans from other high-intelligence creatures, e.g.
problem-solving via tool-use, mourning of the dead… Years of research show that the trait
that really makes us a breed apart is: Humans are the only creatures on earth who are capable
of LMC and SiMC; homo sapiens5 are also homo linguistica and homo significans)6. Many
high-intelligence creatures use tool to solve problems, mourn their dead…. Many (including
humans) socialise among themselves and team up with other mates to form groups &/or
communities; we are the only creatures that talk to/with one another. We are the only creature
that use things external to our body as mediums of communication, and then turn some of
these mediums into signs. Not only can creatures that are human interbreed with other humans,
they possess LMC & SiMC skills also. All humans share these defining attributes despite our
differences in physical size, hair texture, skin colour, etc.…
Homo significans/symbolicus
Many high-intelligence creatures use their body parts/fluid as signs to send out a message. For
example gazelles mark the boundaries of their territory with a small secretion from scent
glands located beneath their eyes. They deposit the secretion onto a blade of grass around 20
feet apart daily. (Another popular body fluid used for such purposes, in addition to
pheromone-containing secretion, is urine). Many mammals especially those in the cat family
often leave a trail of scent in such a way for mating purpose.
However only we are called homo significans/symbolicus. On the one hand, similar to the
aforementioned creatures, we use things (materials) internal to us to represent meaning(s)
other than the things/materials themselves. Blood, feces, skulls, saliva & bones, often carry
particular meanings in most cultures.
On the other hand we are the only creatures which use both body parts/fluids and items
external to our body (e.g. the sun, poppies and graphs) as signs. Physiognomy (相術) and the
horoscopic traditions of astrology are typical examples of such inclinations. Another
distinctive feature of SiMC among humans is that it serves purposes that go beyond those of a
utilitarian nature (e.g. territory-marking). Signs may be made and used simply for artistic,
5
This is an example of binomial naming of species of living things adopted by students of
human sciences. The name composes of two parts, both of which normally use Latin
grammatical forms. The first part of the name identifies the genus to which the species
belongs; the second part identifies the species within the genus. For example, humans belong
to the genus Homo and within this genus to the species (Homo) sapiens.
6
For more details, Dinitia Smith’s article refers.
xii
social and religious purposes (The Altamira Cave refers). Occasionally, some signs are made
and used for more serious purposes of education and academic inquiry (e.g. to register and
represent our understanding of the workings of the universe) (Side-bar 1 refers).
Indeed all cultures (ancient & modern) invariably leave behind signs usually in the form of
artefacts that embody a message. In ancient times, such artefacts often take a relatively crude,
iconic form of 2-dimensional graphic images and 3-dimensional solid items. Over the years,
humankind has become more and more skilled in this endeavour and gradually more
sophisticated forms have been developed. Embodying coded messages via a sign to be passed
onto &/or shown to intended receivers, viz. SiMC, has become a popular means of human
communication and a significant part of human culture and experience.
Side-bar 1: Signs indicating the germination of mathematical concepts
among our ancient ancestors
[Probably] prehistoric peoples first expressed quantity by scratching lines on ground, rock
or wood… there are drawings that indicate some knowledge of elementary mathematics and
of time measurement based on the stars. For example, palaeontologists have discovered
ochre rocks in a South African cave that were about 70,000 years old, adorned with
scratched geometric patterns. Also prehistoric artefacts discovered in Africa and France,
dated between 35,000 and 20,000 years old, suggest early attempts to quantify time. There is
evidence that women devised counting to keep track of their menstrual cycles; 28 to 30
scratches on bone or stone, followed by a distinctive marker. …The Ishango bone, found
near the headwaters of the Nile river (north-eastern Congo), may be as much as 20,000
years old. One common interpretation is that the bone is the earliest known demonstration
of sequences of prime numbers and of Ancient Egyptian multiplication. Pre-dynastic
Egyptians of the 5th millennium BC pictorially represented geometric spatial designs. It has
been claimed that megalithic monuments in England (e.g. The Stonehenge) and Scotland
(e.g. The Orkneys complex), dating from the 3rd millennium BC, incorporate geometric
ideas such as circles, ellipses, and Pythagorean triples in their design.
Adapted from http://www.exampleproblems.com/wiki/index.php/History_of_mathematics
xiii
The C in SiMC
Communication in its broadest sense – information (including signals) exchange between
living organisms – is a function found in both plants (flora) and animals (fauna). However,
other than humans and a few species of fauna of high intelligence, the nature of the exchange
is mostly just chemical &/or physical, intrinsic (within-body), passive and responsive (i.e.
void of conscious intention). For those few species of fauna of high intelligence, information
exchange may involve active, conscious behaviour with intentions. However, the mediums
used are invariably within-body agents in the form of either body parts, fluid &/or hormones.
Only humans are able of creating new meanings, encoding them and embodying them via
artefacts both intrinsic and extrinsic to their body. Only humans use selected sound segments
&/or artefacts to embody highly complex messages in such a way that they can be passed onto
intended receivers and be understood by them. Only humans are skilled in the mediation
between the tangible and the intangible (such as ideas like truth, goodness, beauty…), and the
use of the tangible to represent the unimaginable, the unreachable, and the unmentionable.
Only humans can make signs that can be understood by people around them and of their time,
as well as by other people from a different time and/or a different place. SiMC is an essential
part of a form of communication unique to humans (HC).
HC may be conceptualized, summarised via a 5-factor model: (1) an idea with meaning that
originates from and situates in a source in the form of electrical signals, (2) to make the
signals intelligible, they are encoded in a linguistic &/or semiotic form, (3) the encoded data
are then passed onto the intended destination via a medium (voice… things/material), (4) at
the receiving end efforts are made to decode the message vis-à-vis the medium according to
shared norms, and then (5) [if things go well] the intended message is registered &/or
understood at the destination. Feedback (the loop) may or may not take place. If it does, it
may start another round of information exchange. In this subject, we will focus on only one of
the five factors, viz. the medium. In HC, the medium is usually a tangible item (lest we forget,
speech is tangible).
A major goal of communication studies is to unravel (1a) How things or materials become a
medium. (1b) How certain mediums become a sign. And (2) How a medium relate to the
referent (concept, object) that it represents. (1b) is about symbolization (hereafter referred as
signification), i.e. an act of meaning-conferment. (2) is about mediation. In this subject, C is
to be understood by way of S & M!
Also, in this subject, when the word SIGN is spelled as such, it refers to the concept. Whereas
when signs are spelled like this, the term refers to all the tangibles used to represent other
tangibles and/or intangibles. In other words the term sign is of an umbrella nature and covers
xiv
tangibles like chemical signals to cultural symbols used in HC. Therefore, in the hierarchy of
HC mediums (HCMs), signs sit at the top (that’s why signification is used instead of
symbolization). Among HCMs, there are linguistic and non-linguistic (NL) signs; the latter
includes physical and chemical signals. In this subject our focus is on NL signs, excluding
physical and chemical signals. With this narrow definition, NL signs may be further divided
into cultural signs and body-language signs. Mr. Ng covers the latter in Part B; I cover the
former in Part A.
Although a discourse about SiMC will inevitably involve conceptual resources from semiotics,
Part A is mostly about cultural signs (Side-bar 2 refers). A cultural sign, as indicated above, is
usually a tangible item and may take the form of a natural element. However, unlike natural
signs, cultural signs are artefacts: they may embody natural elements but the raw form of such
elements in a cultural sign has invariably undergone a treatment/modification process; cultural
signs normally have a measure of design. The design, however, are usually done according to
the norms of the culture concerned; the meanings of cultural signs are normally culture-bound,
i.e. ‘local’. Whereas the mechanisms of signification, i.e. the mediation between signs and the
referent (concept, object) that they represent, such as resemblance, associations and
convention, are “universal”, or culture-independent. In other words cultural signs have both
local and global qualities. In addition, the meanings embodied in cultural signs may vary from
being explicit, implicit to hidden, depending on their design &/or the intentions of the ‘source’.
Before we delve into these attributes/qualities of signs, let’s first address the question “What
is SIGN?”
Side-bar 2: Semiotics
The study of signs is often conducted in the language of semiotics. According to Umberto Eco,
an Italian philosopher, semiotics, as a discipline, is concerned with everything that can be taken
as a sign. However, students interested in this discipline soon find that their studies have been
hampered by two methodological problems. First, it is about how signs are understood by
semiotic specialists. Many of them believe the scope of semiotics should cover not only linguistic
signs but of anything which stands for something else, including images, sounds, material and
immaterial objects… e.g. Charles Peirce, an American philosopher, asserts that ‘every thought
is a sign’. The scope of phenomena covered by semiotics therefore ranges from the mental to the
material; its units of study ranges from the micro (a phoneme) to the macro (a movie); from
gestures to parades, musical sound to human speech, book-marks to books of various kinds,
paintings to museums, TV series… As a result, its scope of study lacks definitive boundaries.
xv
The second methodological problem is about the style in which the semiotic specialists explore
the matter of their subject. Many of them appear to be obsessed with definitions, nomenclatures
and typologies, topics that are not directly related to signs as such. For example, Charles
Peirce believes, in theory, there could be 59,049 types of signs! In addition, the writing of
semiotic specialists is often dense with jargon, and presented in a style that ranges from the
obscure to the incomprehensible (Justine Lewis); another critic wittily remarked that 'semiotics
tells us things we already know in a language we will never understand' (Paddy Whannel).
Fortunately, just as an examination of one’s religious faith does not necessarily involve a study
of theology; neither does a study of cultural signs necessarily involve a study of semiotics. In
this subject, while the theoretical resources of semiotics will be used, they will be kept to the
minimum so that there will be sufficient mental space and time for us all to explore the
fascinating universe of cultural signs.
A theory of signs according to Saussure
According to Ferdinand Saussure, a structural linguist and a theoretician in semiotics, the
SIGN is made up of two constituents: the referent (concept/object) that a sign represents and
the form that a sign takes. In other words the SIGN has a symbolic value (the referent) and a
form. He terms the referent Signifié (Signified) and the form Signifiant (Signifier) and offers a
dyadic (2-factor) model of the SIGN. One essential feature of his model is that there may not
be any necessary correspondence between the Signifié (Signified) and the Signifiant
(Signifier), i.e. the mediation between the Signified and the Signifier is arbitrary, a matter of
convention. This idea is especially relevant to an understanding of the symbolic system of
modern languages. However, for a study of cultural signs, Saussure’s dyadic model may not
be as helpful as Peirce’s triadic model.
A theory of signs according to Peirce7
According to Charles S. Peirce, a philosopher and a theoretician of semiotics, the SIGN (as a
concept) is made up of three constituents:
 the physical form of a sign (technically termed representamen (sign-vehicle), an
entity in a particular form or loosely speaking, Saussure’s Signifiant/Signifier),
 the object (used as a technical term here, also termed referent8) that it represents
(loosely speaking Saussure’s Signifié/Signified) and
 the interpretant.
7
For students who are interested in the question What makes a sign (according to Peirce), pl.
refer to “A summary of Peirce’s Sign Theory” available in the subject web-page.
8
Prof So’s preferred term.
xvi
What distinguish Peirce’s triadic (3-factor) model, vis-à-vis Saussure’s dyadic model, are that
(1) signification is not a simple mediation between the representamen (e.g. tear) and
Object/referent (e.g. grief): a sign signifies only in being interpreted, being made sense of (as
a sign of grief). This makes the interpretant central to the content of the sign, in that, the
meaning of a sign (tear) is manifest in the interpretation that it generates in intended parties
which he calls Interpretant (OR the effect of the sign on an intended party OR the
understanding that the intended parties have of the representamen / object = tear/grief).
(2) Charles S. Peirce further points out that the mediation between a representamen and its
referent (concept, object) is dynamic. The representamen, after its creation, will have a life of
its own and may come to produce different effects on other, third parties. In other words, the
same representamen (e.g. tear), to a different party, may produce a different interpretant and
the referent (concept, object) may switch from grief to joy. In other words, the interpretant
refers to a particular version of translation of the representamen (e.g. tear); each particular
version might, or might not match the object’s original version (e.g. grief).
(3) Unlike Saussure who tries to highlight the arbitrary nature of the connection between the
sign and its meaning, Peirce stresses that objects may act on their signs as well. That is to say,
the nature of the object constrains the nature of the representamen in terms of what certain
mechanisms of signification require. In other words, the representamen / object connection
may not be entirely arbitrary: a nose may not be used as a sign of joy, for example; a stick
may not be used as a sign of wealth. The correspondence among the Representamen,
Interpretant and Object/Referent in Peirce’s triadic model of HC is therefore much more
complex than that between the Signifiant and Signifié in Saussure’s dyadic model. It is also
more relevant to this subject.
In spite of their differences, Saussure’s dyadic model and Peirce’s triadic model share a
common observation: the SIGN is not a singular entity; it is an ensemble (of respectively two
and three constituents).
Basic types of signs
The above two sections are about What makes the SIGN. The following sections are about a
typology of signs. Signs may be divided into three general categories, viz. icons 相符, indices
示符 and symbols 約符. To avoid the confusion caused by the common interchangeable use
of the terms symbols and signs, the ‘long version’ of these three kinds of signs – Iconic-signs,
Indexical-signs and Symbolic-signs – will be used whenever appropriate.
xvii
According to Peirce, signs are to be differentiated on the basis of medium-object relation
(mediation): that iconic-signs bear resemblance to its object (concept, referent). Whereas
indexical-signs have a direct, intrinsic/organic association with the object, albeit not by way
of resemblance, that includes but go beyond functional and/or formal correspondence; they
provide an often interactive indication of their object that is not usually found among
icon-signs. As for symbolic-signs, their connection with their object is a matter of convention,
and/or arbitrary association. Accordingly vis-à-vis their object these different categories of
signs have different degrees of abstraction and arbitrariness. In this subject, the treatment of
this topic will follow closely, albeit not entirely, Peirce’s ideas.
Although the focus of this subject is about cultural signs, we will first start with natural signs
as SiMC has its origin in using raw matters from nature to represent something other than
these matters themselves. In addition, the following will also show how, via a process of
signification and mediation, natural items become natural signs, and how natural signs, via a
process of design (e.g. abstraction and stylization), become cultural signs.
Natural Signs (Nature in Culture)
What’s nature? What’s culture? How culture comes about? These questions, especially the
last two, are deceptively simple because most students do not have a clue when asked. In the
following, a response to these questions is given from a SiMC perspective.
Natural signs provide a very good demonstration of how nature becomes a part of culture.
Lest we forget: humankind is a part of nature; we come from nature, we live off nature and
run our lives with things from nature. Accordingly in ancient times our signs are invariably
raw materials from nature; many of them acquire symbolic meaning for a person &/or a group
of people. For example, through an association between the whole and its parts, poet Sushi
(蘇軾) turns pebbles on the beaches of East Sea into mementos, i.e. for him natural icons of
the East Sea (我持此石歸 ﹐袖中有東海).
Natural entities may acquire symbolic meaning for a group of people too. For example, via a
form of functional analogy, the sun comes to be a natural iconic-sign of a life-giving deity.
Indeed many ancient religions at the early stage of their development incorporate a form of
sun-worship. And when a natural item acquires meaning for a group of people, it becomes a
part of their culture. In other words, it has become an example of ‘Nature in Culture’. Another
example of this is that via a form of temporal association, the arrival of the red-crowned
cranes (丹頂鶴) in Hokkaido has become a natural indexical-sign that indicates the arrival of
the fall season. Similarly, the colour of the evening sky has become a natural index of weather
xviii
in North America/UK. viz.
Red sky at night, sailor's delight.
Red sky in the morning, sailors take warning.
The mechanisms of the mediation are: (1) In Europe and North America the prevailing wind is
the Westerlies, i.e. their weather comes from the West (whereas ours comes from either the
NE or the SE). (2) The refraction of sunlight at sun-rise and sun-set is the biggest. (3) When
we see a red sky at night, this means that the setting sun is sending its light through a high
concentration of dust particles in a relatively dry atmosphere. Therefore the chance is that
good weather will follow. (4) Conversely a red sunrise indicates that the high concentration of
dust particles may have moved from the west to the east, followed probably by wetter air from
the west. So, rain may be on its way. Accordingly, in these instances, colours of the sky have
acquired cultural meaning. Much of semiotics is about unravelling the mechanisms that
underpin the mediation between a sign and the referent (concept, object) that it represents. In
many cases, the mechanisms involved are not as intelligible as the foregoing case. For
example, often the mediation is a matter of happenstance that’s not conducive to rational
explanation: the wild rosary peas [liquorices (相思豆)] have become a natural symbolic-sign
for the intense affection and longing between separated lovers in South China. Actually there
is no necessary connection between the peas and separated lovers’ love. The former become a
symbolic-sign of the latter simply because the peas are used as a metaphor for such love in a
poem written by a famous poet Wang Wei (王維). The connection between the sign and the
referent (concept, object) is therefore largely a matter of chance and arbitrary association.
Indeed in many cultures, for various reasons and often as a matter of chance, certain fruits,
flowers and animals are assigned cultural meanings and become iconic, indexical and/or
symbolic signs. And it is through such conferment of meaning and/or use of natural items
with cultural values that certain bits of nature become a part of human culture.
Cultural Signs (Nature becomes Culture)
For obvious reasons, there are major impediments in the use of natural signs, especially those
the use of which has to be done on site. The Iao Needle on Maui Island (The Hawaiian Islands)
and the Yangyuan Stone (陽元石) at the Danxia Hills (丹霞山) are such examples. They have
become through physical resemblance a phallic icon and a fertility shrine. However in the old
days a pilgrimage to their site would take half a day or more. Another impediment is that the
natural signs concerned may not be readily available, e.g. the sun comes out only during the
day. Probably as a way of getting around these constraints, many natural signs are being
converted into cultural signs. Popular approaches are size-reduction (miniaturization) and
replication: phallic icons like the Iao Needle are made more accessible by being converted
into a cultural artefact. Phallic icons are found in most if not all human communities. For
xix
example in Hinduism, the cosmic-pillar linga (also spelled lingam, = sign) is used for the
worship of Shiva (supreme god of destruction). It also represents the balance between male
and female creative energies and to abstract principles of creation. Another example is Min;
the god of reproduction in Ancient Egyptian is often represented in male human form, shown
with an erected penis. In ancient Japan phallus adoration was widespread and fertility shrines
could be found in most places. Even today, the ‘Kanamara Matsuri Shinto fertility festival’ is
still celebrated every spring in Kawasaki. The phallic icon is also a favourite prop in gay or
lesbian parades in The West, especially the one in San Francisco.
xx