(from Gk. Sēmeion: ‘Sign’).
The science of signs.
1. Models in general semiotics.
NAOMI CUMMING
Two thinkers may be credited with developing this study in the 20th century. Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), who used the term ‘semiology’, instigated a systematic approach to the study of language, based on the observation of binary contrasts as constitutive of the ‘meaning’ of units at any level of generality. The signifying unit, or ‘signifier’, does not bear any intrinsic relationship to the object or idea that forms its ‘signified’ content. This content is purely arbitrary and is determined by the relationship of the term to others, in binary pairs. ‘Bit’ and ‘Bat’, for example, are distinguished by the binary contrast of their vowels. Saussure's manner of analysing language as a relatively stable system of such contrasts, existing synchronically, contrasts with the ‘diachronic’ or historically-based approach to word meaning found in traditional philology. His further distinction between ‘langue’ and ‘parole’ is based on the assumption that a synchronic system (langue) is internalized by speakers and reflected in their individual utterances (parole).
The term ‘semiotics’ is more commonly used in traditions influenced by Charles S. Peirce (1839–1914), who developed his thought on signs (independently of Saussure) as part of a broader project in the study of logic and epistemology. Signs are not limited, in Peirce's thought, to elements of a language, but may include anything that ‘stands to somebody for something’. He characterizes signs as having a three-part structure: sign (representamen), object and interpretant. The sign is an item observed as having a capacity to represent. Its ‘object’ is the idea conveyed by the sign, which may or may not be an idea of a concrete thing. The ‘interpretant’ (in its simplest form) is that by virtue of which the sign and object are linked. An interpretant may be a conventional code, arbitrarily formed, to give a kind of meaning consistent with that observed by Saussure. An organized system is not, however, necessary to Peirce's notion of sign. To account for non-conventional signification, he allows that the interpretant may also be grounded on apparent ‘likeness’ or a causal relationship between the sign and its object. The triad of terms most commonly taken up from Peirce's semiotics reflects these possibilities. The ‘icon’ signifies by likeness, the ‘index’ by causal connection and the ‘symbol’ by stipulated convention. Broader factors relevant to the understanding of a sign may include not only ‘interpretants’ of how its relationship to an object is grounded but also a network of further signs. ‘Cat’ is a ‘symbol’, with a purely stipulative relationship to its object, a kind of animal. If ‘mammal’ is invoked in defining it, another symbol has become an interpretant, and may activate an ongoing chain of interpretants. This is the process taken up by Umberto Eco, Floyd Merrell (1997), Jean-Jacques Nattiez and others as constituting ‘infinite semiosis’.
Although Saussure and Peirce have been highly influential it would be mistaken to assume that their contributions have led to an orthodox ‘methodology’ for the study of signs. Rather than denoting a unified discipline, the term ‘semiotics’ covers a diverse collection of projects relating in some way to ‘semiosis’. This last term refers to the activity of signs and may be found in contexts ranging from bio-semiosis (representation in biological systems) to cultural or social semiosis. The patterns of inquiry set by Saussure and Peirce would suggest that systematicity in the study of signs is a primary concern, pointing to a new ‘discipline’, with definable boundaries and some degree of consensus about its basic terms. Thomas Sebeok promoted the development of such a discipline in his introductory books, drawing on Peirce's divisions of signs. Eco (1976), also, went some way towards marking the boundaries of semiotic study, although he questions the usefulness of such basic terms as Peirce's ‘icon’. When semiotics is brought into dialogue with deconstructive and postmodern thought, the very notion of a unified ‘methodology’ comes under stronger question. Postmodern habits of questioning unified systems of meaning work against the completion of a project such as that envisaged by Peirce, where an architechtonic system organized in ‘trichotomies’ (such as the icon, index, symbol) is ordered to embrace every possible mode of signification. Discourse engaged with deconstructing binary oppositions also opposes Saussure's structuralist bent. Evident in the narratology of Algirdas Greimas is a problematizing of binary oppositions, with the formation of a new pattern of contrasts featuring not two but four terms. Other semioticians (Eco) explore codes without particular concern for oppositional relationships. Deconstructive and postmodern trends do not extinguish projects of semiotic study but call for a constant revision of what that study entails, and renegotiation of its boundary with other disciplines.
Studies in musical semiotics reflect the diversity of ‘semiotics’ generally. They may be divided into two broad types: the structuralist and the semantic or referential. Leonard Meyer (1956) suggested that the latter might be divided into an ‘internalist’ and ‘externalist’ form, a distinction that still holds to some degree. Jean-Jacques Nattiez is a dominant figure in structuralist studies, which were given their first impetus by Nicholas Ruwet's segmentational analysis of a Geisslerlied (1972). This method of analysis reflects the goals of scientific objectivity set up by Saussure's study of language. Drawing also on the French theorist, Jean Molino, Nattiez postulates a tripartition of musical activity into three domains: the poietic, concerned with modes of creation; the ‘neutral’, or that which is immanent in the score, and the aesthetic, or domain of a listener's response. Nattiez's form of semiotic analysis belongs properly to the second of these; not concerned with mental acts of either composer or listener, it seeks to elucidate the structures of the score through processes of segmentation and comparison. Recurrent events are identified as belonging to a paradigm, to be tabulated on a vertical axis, while contiguous events appear horizontally, to form the axis of the syntagm. Internal relationships only are of concern. Each segmentational unit is a ‘sign’, held in relation to other ‘signs’, without regard to such things as effective connotation or cultural reference.
An internalist semantic approach begins with structures in the score, but seeks to relate them not only to other structures but to ideas with extra-musical reference. These forms of content were labelled by Wilson Coker as ‘extrageneric’, in contrast to the internal, or ‘cogeneric’, content derived from purely structural analysis (Coker, 1972). The indirect influence of Peirce is evident in Coker's account of musical ‘gesture’, which he treats as an aural ‘icon’ of non-musical gesturing. Coker became conversant with a behaviourist adaptation of Peirce's theory of sign through the work of Charles Morris, which was also influential in Meyer's account (1956) of meaning as expectancy. A more directly Peircean account of musical content, in which gesture receives some emphasis, is given by David Lidov (1987), who seeks to explicate the affective content of musical gesture as an icon of expressive movements with distinctive psycho-physiological motivation. The trichotomy of icon, index and symbol explicated by Lidov is also central to Vladimir Karbusicky's theory (1986) of musical semantics. Karbusicky differs, however, in placing greater weight on music's capacity to create a variety of directional indices (1987). He is concerned, furthermore, with the broad range of interpretants that may be brought by a listener to the hearing of a work.
Peirce's thought plays a subsidiary role in the work of other musical semioticians. Robert Hatten's account (1994) of semantic content in Beethoven relies more on a theory of ‘markedness’ developed by the linguist Michael Shapiro (1976). Shapiro identifies paired semantic oppositions as typically having a single ‘marked’ term, one that is more distinctive or limited in its application. Hatten applies this idea to oppositions of stylistic categories or ‘topoi’ within a composition (Ratner, 1980). Gesture plays an important role in his theory, as it does in those of Coker and Lidov, but Hatten places greater emphasis on its contextualization in a stylistic framework where paired oppositions of gestural types may be observed. A development of the Peircean view of iconicity is implied. In place of an ‘iconicity’ based on a perception of likeness between musical and non-musical movements, Hatten proposes a theory of correlation between the pairs of terms used to identify marked oppositions in music and their application in non-musical contexts. The need expressed by Eco for a definition of ‘icon’ that does not rely on a vague notion of similarity finds one solution in this way.
Oppositionality also plays a central part in Eero Tarasti's account (1994) of ‘actoriality’, a term used to convey the idea of anthropomorphic content (such as ‘wilfulness’) in tonal processes. Algirdas Greimas's narratological theories are the main impetus for Tarasti's semiotic theory, and also inform Márta Grabócz's analysis of narrative ordering in Liszt. In these semiotic approaches, musical themes or motifs are conceived as functioning symbolically as ‘actors’ or ‘actants’ capable of assuming distinctive ‘attitudes’ and following a narrative course similar to that found in literature. Greimas's theory of narrative ordering is based on two axes. A term (A) and its negation (not A) are placed on one diagonal axis; a complementary or contrasting term (B) and its negation (not B) on an opposite diagonal axis, forming a cross. A paradigmatic narrative is taken to follow the course A–not A–B–not B. ‘Excessivity’ (A) might, for example, be contrasted with ‘insufficiency’ (B) in such a scheme, forming a narrative in which the negation of insufficiency (not B) is the final resolution – a state of sufficiency (Tarasti, 1994, p.53). This sequence of events finds application to musical contexts in which the opposition and complementarity of different ‘actorial’ units may readily be identified.
Other approaches to referential analysis are both flexible and syncretic. A number of authors show a concern for stylistically established ‘codes’ of meaning, styles and topics, such as those identified by Ratner (1980). Eco's notion of ‘code’ (1976), developed from Peirce's ‘interpretant’, allows for an on going process of interpretation, based on the application to music of typologies of varying degrees of generality. Codes of meaning are not approached necessarily in binary pairs, but may be organized in many ways. Their variety is explored by Roland Barthes in S/Z (1970). When Gino Stefani describes musical codes, under Eco's influence, he identifies a number of discrete types (Stefani and Marconi, 1987). Robert Samuels (1995) argues instead for a flexible approach, in which the coding strategies used by listeners have no pre-defined limit or technique of analysis. Kofi Agawu (1991) is similarly concerned with developing a multi-dimensioned view of the sign, and particularly with showing the mutual interdependence of stylistic topics and internal structural relationships in the Western classical idiom.
Accounts of musical signification with an ‘external’ or ‘cultural’ emphasis have been put forward by authors who do not identify themselves as ‘semioticians’. The factor distinguishing an approach as ‘semiotic’ might be taken as a concern with systematicity, starting any investigation with a close structural or stylistic analysis. This is, however, a generalization that is not intractable. A musical interpretation may be less concerned with identifying systematic bases for the attribution of meanings to units than it is with creating a richly described account of how the place of music in its cultural context creates codes of meaning or association. These need not be systematically formed and appraised so long as they are repeated sufficiently often to be recognizable by a given community. The account is ‘semiotic’ in its broadest sense if it is concerned with the relationship between musical units and other signifying units in a culture. Potential links between a semiotic approach to musical meaning and a wide range of postmodern thought have been explored by Raymond Monelle. The study of musical signification crosses boundaries between the domains of structuralist and cultural study, or the disciplines of ‘theory’, ‘history’ and ‘ethnomusicology’. It is not a ‘discipline’ with a closed set of methodologies, authorities and topics, but a wide-ranging set of interpretative projects in which aspects of musical content are appraised both ‘internally’ and in relation to other cultural domains.
See also Analysis, §I, 5 and 6; Deconstruction; Hermeneutics; Postmodernism and Structuralism, post-structuralism.
C. Harsthorne, P. Weiss and A.W. Burks, eds.: Peirce, Charles, S.: Collected Papers (Cambridge, MA, 1931–60)
C. Morris: Signification and Significance: a Study of the Relations of Signs and Values (Cambridge, MA, 1964)
A. Greimas: Sémantique structurale: recherche de méthode (Paris, 1966)
R. Barthes: S/Z (Paris, 1970, Eng. trans., 1974)
U. Eco: A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington, IN, 1976)
M. Shapiro: Asymmetry: an Inquiry into the Linguistic Structure of Poetry (Amsterdam, 1976)
A. Greimas: Du sens: éssais sémantiques (Paris, 1979–83)
T. Sebeok: Signs: an Introduction to Semiotics (London, 1994)
F. Merrell: Peirce, Signs, and Meaning (Toronto, 1997)
D. Lidov: Elements of Semiotics (New York, 1999)
L.B. Meyer: Emotion and Meaning in Music (Chicago, 1956/R)
W. Coker: Music & Meaning: a Theoretical Introduction to Musical Aesthetics (New York, 1972)
N. Ruwet: Langage, musique, poésie (Paris, 1972)
P. Faltin and H.P. Reinecke, eds.: Musik und Verstehen: Aufsätze zur semiotischen Theorie, Ästhetik und Soziologie der musikalischen Rezeption (Cologne, 1973)
J.J. Nattiez: Fondements d'une sémiologie de la musique (Paris, 1975)
M. Imberty: Signification and Meaning in Music (Montreal, 1976)
G. Stefani: Introduzione alla semiotica della musica (Palermo, 1976)
P. Faltin: ‘Musikalische Bedeutung: Grenzen und Möglichkeiten einer semiotischen Äesthetik’, IRASM, ix (1978), 5–33
M. Imberty: Entendre la musique: sémantique psychologique de la musique (Paris, 1979)
V. Medushevsky: ‘Muzïkal'nïy stil' kak semioticheskiy ob'yekt' [Musical style as a semiotic object], SovM (1979), no.3, pp.30–39
J. Bajer: ‘Hudebne sémioticky vyzkum v CSSR’ [Research in the field of musical semiotics in Czechoslovakia], HV, xvii (1980), 195–201
R. Schneider: Semiotik der Musik: Darstellung und Kritik (Munich, 1980)
C. Kaden: ‘Prolegomena k jedné semiotice hudby’ [Prolegomena to a semiotics of music], HV, xviii (1981), 238–57
W. Steiner, ed.: The Sign in Music and Literature (Austin, TX, 1981)
C.L. Boilès: ‘Processes of Musical Semiosis’, YTM, xiv (1982), 24–44
J. Dunsby: ‘Editorial: Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Semiotic Music Analysis’, MAn, i (1982), 235–42
S. Feld: ‘Communication, Music, and Speech about Music’, YTM, xvi (1984), 1–18
P. Faltin: Bedeutung ästhetischer Zeichen: Musik und Sprache (Aachen, 1985)
J. Jiránek: Zu Grundfragen der musikalischen Semiotik (Berlin, 1985)
V. Karbusicky: Grundriss der musikalischen Semantik (Darmstadt, 1986)
D. Lidov: ‘Music’, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics, ed. T. Sebeok (Berlin, 1986)
T. Misiak: ‘Muzyka a semiotyczne kryterium kultury’, Muzyka, xxxi/2 (1986), 78–89 [with Eng. summary]
V. Karbusicky: ‘The Index Sign in Music’, Semiotica, lxvi (1987), 23–35
D. Lidov: ‘Mind and Body in Music’, Semiotica, lxvi (1987), 69–97
N. Ruwet: ‘Methods of Analysis in Musicology’, MAn, vi (1987), 3–36
G. Stefani and L. Marconi, eds.: Il senso in musica: antologia di semiotica musicale (Bologna, 1987)
J.J. Nattiez: ‘Reflections on the Development of Semiology in Music’, MAn, viii (1989), 21–75
A. Björnberg: ‘Sign of the Times? om musikvideo och populaermusikens semiotik’, STMf, lxxii, (1990), 63–84
J. Molino: ‘Musical Fact and the Semiology of Music’, MAn, ix (1990), 105–56
J.J. Nattiez: ‘Can one Speak of Narrativity in Music?’, JRMA, cxv (1990), 240–57
V.K. Agawu: Playing with Signs: a Semiotic Interpretation of Classic Music (Princeton, NJ, 1991)
J. Fukac: ‘Muzikologické jistoty a rozpaky “postemiotického” věku’ [Musical certainties and puzzlements of the post-semiotic age], HV, xxviii (1991), 360–64
R. Monelle: ‘Music and the Peircean Trichotomies’, IRASM, xxii (1991), 99–108
R. Walser: ‘The Body in the Music: Epistemology and Musical Semiotics’, College Music Symposium, xxxi (1991), 117–26
R. Monelle: Linguistics and Semiotics in Music (Chur, 1992)
M. Schultz: Oué significa la música? Del sonido al sentido musical (Santiago, Chile, 1993)
E. Tarasti: A Theory of Musical Semiotics (Bloomington, IN, 1994)
E. Tarasti, ed.: Musical Semiotics in Growth (Bloomington, IN, 1996)
R. Monelle: Theorizing Music: Text, Topic, Temporality (Bloomington, IN, 1998)
J. Jiránek: ‘Assafjews Intonationslehre und ihre Perspectiven’, De musica disputationes Pragneses, i (1972), 13–45
F. Noske: The Signifier and the Signified: Studies in the Operas of Mozart and Verdi (The Hague, 1977/R)
L. Ratner: Classic Music: Expression, Form and Style (New York, 1980)
J. Dunsby and J. Stopford: ‘The Case for a Schenkerian Semiotic’, MTS, iii (1981), 49–53
D. Lidov: ‘The Allegretto of Beethoven's Seventh’, American Journal of Semiotics, i (1981–2), 144–66
J. Levy: ‘Texture as a Sign in Classic and Early Romantic Music’, JAMS, xxxv (1982), 482–531
J.J. Nattiez: ‘Varèse Density 21.5: a Study in Semiological Analysis’, MAn, i (1982), 243–340
M.D. Audbourg-Popin: ‘Élements d'une sémiotique rationnelle du discours musical: Bach prédicateur’, RdM, lxx (1984), 86–94
W. Dougherty: An Examination of Semiotics in Musical Analysis: the Neapolitan Complex in Beethoven's Op.131 (diss., U. of Ohio, 1986)
M. Grábocz: Morphologie des oeuvres pour piano de Liszt: influence du programme sur l'évolution des formes instrumentales (Budapest, 1986)
D. Mosley: Gesture, Sign, and Song: an Interdisciplinary Approach to Schumann's Liederkreis Opus 39 (New York, 1990)
P. Dunbar-Hall: ‘Semiotics as a Method for the Study of Popular Music’, IRASM, xxii (1991), 127–32
T. Winner: ‘The Aesthetic Semiotics of Ramon [sic] Jakobson’, Sonus, xi (1991), 1–25
R. Hatten: Musical Meaning in Beethoven (Bloomington, IN, 1994)
A. van Baest and H. van Driel: The Semiotics of C.S. Peirce Applied to Music (Tilburg, 1995)
R. Samuels: Mahler's Sixth Symphony (Cambridge, 1995)
N. Cumming: ‘The Subjectivities of Erbarme Dich’, MAn, xvi (1997), 5–44