Elements of Semiology

108 Pages·1968·17.216 MB·English

by  Roland Barthes

A/so by Roland Barthes
Elements
ON RACINE
WRITING DEGREE ZERO
MYTHOLOGIES
S/Z
o j Semiology
THE PLEASURE OF THE TEXT
SADE I FOURIER / LOYOLA
ROLAND BARTHES
Roland
Barthes
Translated from the French by
Annette Lavers and Colin Smith
ii
HILL WANG .
AND NEW YORK
A DIVISION OF FARRAR, STRAUS AND GIROUX
-
:
:• .... · " ._,
~, .' ~ . \• ·-; :
fro .~
Translated the French Elements de Semiologie -·· contents
© 1964 by Ed1t10ns du Seuil, Paris
Translation © 1967 by Jonathan Cape Ltd
All rights reserved .
Library of Congress catalog card number: 68-30769
~anufactured in the United States of America Introduction 9'l
First American edition, September 1968
Eleventh printing, 1986 I LANGUAGE (LANGUE) AND SPEECH 13
L/ I::!._ l In lin9uistics 13
ln Saussure 13
& l
p:;-R_
<.> 3
2 The language (lan9ue) 14
3 Speech (parole) 14
_L.
4 The dialectics of language and speech 5
l
5 In Hjelmslev 17 ~ ~
6 Some problems 18
7 The idiolect 2 l
8 Duplex structures 22
2 Semiological prospects 23
The language, speech and the social sciences 23
1
The garment system
2 25
3 The food system 27
4 The car system, the furniture system 28
5 Complex systems 30
6 Problems (I) : the origin of the various signifying
systems 31
7 Problems (II) : the proportion between 'lan-
guage' and 'speech' in the various systems 32
II 35
SIGNIFIER AND SIGNIFIED
The sign 35 · - '
1
The classification of signs 35
1
2 The linguistic sign 38
•
SISTEMA DE Rf~UOTECAS
- U.PL
fro .~
Translated the French Elements de Semiologie -·· contents
© 1964 by Ed1t10ns du Seuil, Paris
Translation © 1967 by Jonathan Cape Ltd
All rights reserved .
Library of Congress catalog card number: 68-30769
~anufactured in the United States of America Introduction 9'l
First American edition, September 1968
Eleventh printing, 1986 I LANGUAGE (LANGUE) AND SPEECH 13
L/ I::!._ l In lin9uistics 13
ln Saussure 13
& l
p:;-R_
<.> 3
2 The language (lan9ue) 14
3 Speech (parole) 14
_L.
4 The dialectics of language and speech 5
l
5 In Hjelmslev 17 ~ ~
6 Some problems 18
7 The idiolect 2 l
8 Duplex structures 22
2 Semiological prospects 23
The language, speech and the social sciences 23
1
The garment system
2 25
3 The food system 27
4 The car system, the furniture system 28
5 Complex systems 30
6 Problems (I) : the origin of the various signifying
systems 31
7 Problems (II) : the proportion between 'lan-
guage' and 'speech' in the various systems 32
II 35
SIGNIFIER AND SIGNIFIED
The sign 35 · - '
1
The classification of signs 35
1
2 The linguistic sign 38
•
SISTEMA DE Rf~UOTECAS
- U.PL
3 The system 71
3 Form and substance 39.>,,t
4 The semiological sign 4f I Similarity and dissimilarity; difference 71
The signifi.ed 42 2 The oppositions 73
2
3 The classification of oppositions 74
Nature of the signified 42
. . l
4 Semiological oppositions 79
2 Class1ficat1on of the linguistic signifieds 44
5 Binarism 80
3 The semiological signifieds 45
6 Neutralization 83
3 The signifier 47 7 Transgressions 86
Nature of the signifier 47
l
IV DENOT A TION AND CONNOT AT ION 89
2 Classification of the signifiers 48
4 The signification 48 l Staggered systems 89
The significant correlation 48 2 Connotation 90
l
2 The arb~trary and the motivated in linguistics 50 3 M etalanguage 92
3 The arb1trary and the motivated in semiology 51
4 Connotation and metalanguage 93
5 Value 54
Conclusion : semiological research 95
Value in linguistics 54
l
Notes 99
2 The articulation 56
Bibliography 105
III SYNTAGM AND SYSTEM 58
Selected Bibliography 107
The two axes of language 58
1
Index 108
l Syntagmatic and associative relationships in
linguistics 58
2 Metaphor and metonymy in Jakobson 60
<
3 Semiological prospects 61
2 The syntagm 62
Syntagm and speech 62
l
2 Discontinuity 64
3 The commutation test 65
4 The ·syntagmatic units 67
5 The combinative constraints 69
6 Identity and distance of syntagmatic units 70
3 The system 71
3 Form and substance 39.>,,t
4 The semiological sign 4f I Similarity and dissimilarity; difference 71
The signifi.ed 42 2 The oppositions 73
2
3 The classification of oppositions 74
Nature of the signified 42
. . l
4 Semiological oppositions 79
2 Class1ficat1on of the linguistic signifieds 44
5 Binarism 80
3 The semiological signifieds 45
6 Neutralization 83
3 The signifier 47 7 Transgressions 86
Nature of the signifier 47
l
IV DENOT A TION AND CONNOT AT ION 89
2 Classification of the signifiers 48
4 The signification 48 l Staggered systems 89
The significant correlation 48 2 Connotation 90
l
2 The arb~trary and the motivated in linguistics 50 3 M etalanguage 92
3 The arb1trary and the motivated in semiology 51
4 Connotation and metalanguage 93
5 Value 54
Conclusion : semiological research 95
Value in linguistics 54
l
Notes 99
2 The articulation 56
Bibliography 105
III SYNTAGM AND SYSTEM 58
Selected Bibliography 107
The two axes of language 58
1
Index 108
l Syntagmatic and associative relationships in
linguistics 58
2 Metaphor and metonymy in Jakobson 60
<
3 Semiological prospects 61
2 The syntagm 62
Syntagm and speech 62
l
2 Discontinuity 64
3 The commutation test 65
4 The ·syntagmatic units 67
5 The combinative constraints 69
6 Identity and distance of syntagmatic units 70
INTRODUCTION
In his Course in General Linguistics, first published
in 1916, Saussure postulated the existence of a general
science of signs, or Semiology, of which linguistics
would fonn only one art. Semiology therefore aims
o take in any system of signs, whatever their sub
tance and limits; images, gestures, musical sounds,
objects, and the complex associations of all these,
which form the content of ritual, convention or
public entertainment: these constitute, if not lan
guages, at Ieast systems of signification. There is no
doubt that the development of mass communications
confers particular relevance today upon the vast field
of signifying media, just when the success of disci
plines such as Iinguistics, information theory, formal
logic and structural anthropology provide semantic
analysis with new instruments. There is at present
a kind of demand for semiology, stemming not from
the fads of a f ew scholars, but from the very history
of the modem world.
The fact remains that, although Saussure's ideas
have made great headway, semiology remains a
tentative science. The reason for this may well be
simple. Saussure, followed in this by the main semi
ologists, thought that linguistics merely formed a
part of the gen.eral science of signs. Now it is far
from certain tpat in the social ljfe of today there are
to be found ·any extensive systems of signs outside
human Ianguage. Semiology has so far concerned
itself with codes of no more than slight interest, such
9
INTRODUCTION
JNTRODUCTION
as the Highway Code; the moment we go on to
enn) in its path, not only as a model, but also as
systems where the sociological significance is more
com nent, rela or si&!!ifi . ven so, such Ianguage
than superficial, we are once more confronted with
s not quite that of the linguist: it is a second-order
1
Ianguage. It is true that objects, images and patterns
language, with its unities no longer monemes . or
of behaviour can signify, and do so on a large scale,
phonemes, but Iarger fragments of disco.urse refern?g
but never autonomously; every semiological system
to objects or episodes whose meanmg underli:s
has its linguistic admixture. Where there is a visual
language, but can never exist indep.endently of it.
substance, for example, the meaning is confirmed by
Semiology is therefore perhaps destme.d to be ~b-
being. duplicated in a linguistic message (which hap
V sorbed into a trans-linguistics, the matenals of wh1ch
pe~s m the case of the cinema, advertising, comic
may be myth, narrative, journalism, or on the other
stnps, press photography, etc.) so that at least a part
hand objects of our civilization, in so.far a~ they are
of the iconic message is, in terms of structural rela
spoken (through press, prospe.ctus, mterv1ew, c?n
t~onship,
either redundant or taken up by the linguis
versation and perhaps even the mner Ianguage, whICh
t1c syste?1. As for collections of objects (clothes, food),
is ruled by the Iaws of imagination). In fact, we must
they en1oy the status of systems only in so far as
now face the possibility of inverting Saussure's
they pass through the relay of Ianguage, which ex
declaration: Iinguistics is not a part of the general
tracts their .signifiers (in the form of nomenclature)
\./ science of signs even a privileged part, it is semi
.si g nified ~*
and names their (in the forms of usages or
ology which is a part of linguistic:s : . to_l: ie pr~, i
reasons) : we are, much more than in former times,
is that part covering the reat signifr_ina unities. oti
and despite the spread of pictorial illustration, a civil
discours By th1s mversion we may expect to br~ng
ization of the written word. Finally, and in more
to light the unity of the research at present .bemg
general terms, it appears increasingly more difficult
đone in anthropology, sociology, psycho-analys1s and
to conceive a system of images and objects whose
stylistics round the concept of signification.
signi~eds
can exist independently of language : to
Though it will doubtless be required some day t.o
perce1ve what a substance signifies is inevitably to
change its character, semiology must first _of ali, 1f
fall back on the individuation of a Ianguage: there is
not exactly take definite shape, at Ieast try itself out,
no meaning which is not designated, and the world
explore its possibilities and impossibilities: Thi~ is
of signifieds is none other than that of anguage.
feasible only on the basis of preparatory mvest1ga
nius, ougli worlCing at the outset o_n_ n_o_n--
tion. And indeed it must be acknowledged in advance
linguistic substances, semiology is required, sooner
Oli
that such an investigation is both diffident and rash:
later, to find language (in the ordina!Y sense of the
diffident because semiological knowledge at present
"'We have preferred English to Latin in translating siani can be only a copy of linguistic knowledge; rash be
fiant and signifie, even at the cost of the inelegant plural cause this knowledge must be applied forthwith, at
'signifieds'.
Ieast as a project, to non-linguistic objects.
IO
II
/ .
INTRODUCTION
JNTRODUCTION
as the Highway Code; the moment we go on to
enn) in its path, not only as a model, but also as
systems where the sociological significance is more
com nent, rela or si&!!ifi . ven so, such Ianguage
than superficial, we are once more confronted with
s not quite that of the linguist: it is a second-order
1
Ianguage. It is true that objects, images and patterns
language, with its unities no longer monemes . or
of behaviour can signify, and do so on a large scale,
phonemes, but Iarger fragments of disco.urse refern?g
but never autonomously; every semiological system
to objects or episodes whose meanmg underli:s
has its linguistic admixture. Where there is a visual
language, but can never exist indep.endently of it.
substance, for example, the meaning is confirmed by
Semiology is therefore perhaps destme.d to be ~b-
being. duplicated in a linguistic message (which hap
V sorbed into a trans-linguistics, the matenals of wh1ch
pe~s m the case of the cinema, advertising, comic
may be myth, narrative, journalism, or on the other
stnps, press photography, etc.) so that at least a part
hand objects of our civilization, in so.far a~ they are
of the iconic message is, in terms of structural rela
spoken (through press, prospe.ctus, mterv1ew, c?n
t~onship,
either redundant or taken up by the linguis
versation and perhaps even the mner Ianguage, whICh
t1c syste?1. As for collections of objects (clothes, food),
is ruled by the Iaws of imagination). In fact, we must
they en1oy the status of systems only in so far as
now face the possibility of inverting Saussure's
they pass through the relay of Ianguage, which ex
declaration: Iinguistics is not a part of the general
tracts their .signifiers (in the form of nomenclature)
\./ science of signs even a privileged part, it is semi
.si g nified ~*
and names their (in the forms of usages or
ology which is a part of linguistic:s : . to_l: ie pr~, i
reasons) : we are, much more than in former times,
is that part covering the reat signifr_ina unities. oti
and despite the spread of pictorial illustration, a civil
discours By th1s mversion we may expect to br~ng
ization of the written word. Finally, and in more
to light the unity of the research at present .bemg
general terms, it appears increasingly more difficult
đone in anthropology, sociology, psycho-analys1s and
to conceive a system of images and objects whose
stylistics round the concept of signification.
signi~eds
can exist independently of language : to
Though it will doubtless be required some day t.o
perce1ve what a substance signifies is inevitably to
change its character, semiology must first _of ali, 1f
fall back on the individuation of a Ianguage: there is
not exactly take definite shape, at Ieast try itself out,
no meaning which is not designated, and the world
explore its possibilities and impossibilities: Thi~ is
of signifieds is none other than that of anguage.
feasible only on the basis of preparatory mvest1ga
nius, ougli worlCing at the outset o_n_ n_o_n--
tion. And indeed it must be acknowledged in advance
linguistic substances, semiology is required, sooner
Oli
that such an investigation is both diffident and rash:
later, to find language (in the ordina!Y sense of the
diffident because semiological knowledge at present
"'We have preferred English to Latin in translating siani can be only a copy of linguistic knowledge; rash be
fiant and signifie, even at the cost of the inelegant plural cause this knowledge must be applied forthwith, at
'signifieds'.
Ieast as a project, to non-linguistic objects.
IO
II
/ .
INTRODUCTION
The Elements here presented have as their sole aim
the extraction from linguistics of analytical concepts
1
which we think a priori to be suffi.ciently general to
start semiological research on its way. In assembling
I. LANGUAGE (LANGUE) AND
them, it is not presupposed that they will remain in
tact during the course of research; nor that semi SPEECH
ology will always be forced to follow the linguistic
mo~el closely:2 We a~e merely suggesting and eluci-1
datmg a termmology m the hope that it may enable I. I. IN LINGUISTICS
J1
?n init!al (albeit provisional) order to be introduced
mto the heterogeneous mass of significant facts. In I.I.I. ln Saussure: The (dichotomic) concept of
1
fact what we purport to do is to f urnish a principl e Janguage/sp_eech-iS centra! in Saušsure* and was cer
of classification of the questions. ,
tainly a great novelty in relation to earlier linguistics
These elements of semiology will therefore be which sought to find the causes of historical changes
grouped under four main headings borrowed from in the evolution of pronunciation, spontaneous asso
structural linguistics :
ciations and the working of analogy, and was there
fore a linguistics of the individua! act. In working out
I. Language and Speech.
this famous dichotomy, Saussure started from the
II. Signified and Signifier.
'multiform and heterogeneous' nature of language,
III. Syntagm and System.
which appears at first sight as an unclassifiable reality4
IV. Denotation and Connotation.
the unity of which cannot be brought to light, since
It will be seen that these headings appear in dicho it partakes at the same time of the physical, the physio
tomic form; the reader will also notice that the logical, the mental, the individua! and the social.
binary classification of ooncepts seems frequent in Now this disorder disappears if, from this ete:ro-
structural thought,3 as if the metalanguage of the
geneous whole, is tracted a purely social objec ,
linguist reproduced, like a mirror, the binary struc
e systematize set of conventlons necessary t
ture of the system it is describing; and we shall point communication, indiffe rent to the material of th
out, as the occasion arises, that it would probably signals which com ose it, an which · a langua
be very instructive to study the pre-eminence of (langue); as o posed to which speech ro e cov
binary classification in the discourse of contemporary
e purely in 'v1 ua art of ~ge (phonation, a
social sciences. The ta:xonomy of these sciences, if cation of the rules and conti ent combinations o
it were well known, would undoubtedly provide a
)
great deal of information on what might be cailed the
* The Saussurean notions of Jangue and parole present to
field of intellectual imagination in our time.
the translator into English notorious difficulties, which their
12
INTRODUCTION
The Elements here presented have as their sole aim
the extraction from linguistics of analytical concepts
1
which we think a priori to be suffi.ciently general to
start semiological research on its way. In assembling
I. LANGUAGE (LANGUE) AND
them, it is not presupposed that they will remain in
tact during the course of research; nor that semi SPEECH
ology will always be forced to follow the linguistic
mo~el closely:2 We a~e merely suggesting and eluci-1
datmg a termmology m the hope that it may enable I. I. IN LINGUISTICS
J1
?n init!al (albeit provisional) order to be introduced
mto the heterogeneous mass of significant facts. In I.I.I. ln Saussure: The (dichotomic) concept of
1
fact what we purport to do is to f urnish a principl e Janguage/sp_eech-iS centra! in Saušsure* and was cer
of classification of the questions. ,
tainly a great novelty in relation to earlier linguistics
These elements of semiology will therefore be which sought to find the causes of historical changes
grouped under four main headings borrowed from in the evolution of pronunciation, spontaneous asso
structural linguistics :
ciations and the working of analogy, and was there
fore a linguistics of the individua! act. In working out
I. Language and Speech.
this famous dichotomy, Saussure started from the
II. Signified and Signifier.
'multiform and heterogeneous' nature of language,
III. Syntagm and System.
which appears at first sight as an unclassifiable reality4
IV. Denotation and Connotation.
the unity of which cannot be brought to light, since
It will be seen that these headings appear in dicho it partakes at the same time of the physical, the physio
tomic form; the reader will also notice that the logical, the mental, the individua! and the social.
binary classification of ooncepts seems frequent in Now this disorder disappears if, from this ete:ro-
structural thought,3 as if the metalanguage of the
geneous whole, is tracted a purely social objec ,
linguist reproduced, like a mirror, the binary struc
e systematize set of conventlons necessary t
ture of the system it is describing; and we shall point communication, indiffe rent to the material of th
out, as the occasion arises, that it would probably signals which com ose it, an which · a langua
be very instructive to study the pre-eminence of (langue); as o posed to which speech ro e cov
binary classification in the discourse of contemporary
e purely in 'v1 ua art of ~ge (phonation, a
social sciences. The ta:xonomy of these sciences, if cation of the rules and conti ent combinations o
it were well known, would undoubtedly provide a
)
great deal of information on what might be cailed the
* The Saussurean notions of Jangue and parole present to
field of intellectual imagination in our time.
the translator into English notorious difficulties, which their
12